Extract on confidential government communications from: Seth Barrett
Tillman, Loyola University of Chicago Law School, Fourth Annual Constitutional
Law Colloquium, Six Puzzles for Professor
Akhil Amar (Nov. 1, 2013), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2173899>:
One of my correspondents compared [President] Washington’s accepting these foreign gifts with his taking possession of state
papers at the end of his second term. The two situations are not akin. The Constitution
is silent with regard to state papers; it is not silent in regard to foreign
gifts. Moreover, Washington had a strong claim to “his” papers. [Albeit,] [h]e
had a continuing (fiduciary) duty to protect confidential communications.
He could have believed that he was better situated to do so than his successor
(who was not a party to those communications). Cf. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.
Cas. 342, 347 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) (No. 4,901) (Story, J.) (discussing
confidentiality concerns in regard to the publication of former presidents’ and
other state papers). See generally Title to Presidential Papers, 43 Op.
Att’y Gen. 11 (1974) (Saxbe, Att’y Gen.).
Six Puzzles, at 15 n.67
(emphasis added).
Seth Barrett Tillman, Confidential Government Communications, New Reform Club (Jan. 15, 2023, 4:21 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/01/confidential-government-communications.html>;
No comments:
Post a Comment