Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

Original intent and the White House Social Secretary

By Jack M. Balkin

ADVERTISEMENTS

The White House is apparently invoking the theory of separation of powers to prohibit Desiree Rogers, President Obama's Social Secretary, from testifying on the recent imbroglio regarding gate-crashing at the White House. My own view is that the White House is making a big mistake for no defensible reason. The reason for my title is that it is literally inconceivable that anyone drafting the Constitution would have imagined the position of White House Social Secretary, paid for with taxpayer funds, and that the majesty of separation of powers rhetoric would apply to a situation like this. I note, incidentally, that Ms. Rogers's salary is listed as $113000, the same salary received by her predecessor in the Bush Administration, Amy S. Zantzinger. I can't help noting that Ms. Zantzinger received more than the $107,836 received by Marcella Moira Green, the hitherto unknown "Ethics Advisor" in the Bush White House. There may be reasons for invoking presidential privileges to prevent associates from testifying before Congress (it might certainly be embarrassing to know what Ms. Green might have said in her capacity as ethics advisor to Bush), but this most certainly isn't one of them. This is simply yet more evidence that all presidents, regardless of political party and ostensible commitment to "transparency," take on royalist airs when taking their oath of office. Gerald Ford, recall, chose to testify on the Nixon Pardon, and the country survived just fine (and he died a reasonably beloved ex-President). The separation of powers will easily survive a decision by a gracious President to let his Social Secretary testify, even as he, perhaps defensibly, reminds the Congress that they indeed have no "right" to have her appear.

Full post as published by Balkinization on December 02, 2009 (boomark / email).