Should a single person have the right to withhold a few documents when the liberty of others is in jeopardy?
The tapes are necessary for the courts to carry out a fair and constitutional trial and perform its constitutionally required duty.
Yes, the president does have some executive privileges, but they are certainly not absolute, and when they act as an impediment to the court's ability to uphold justice, these "executive privileges" put the very fundamental beliefs and constitutional structure of our country in jeopardy.
The courts have the constitutional power to decide whether or not evidence is necessary for a fair trial.
If this were just a dispute within the executive branch, no, the federal courts would not have jurisdiction over this matter, but that is certainly not the case. This controversy over the withholding of the evidence is between all three branches: the supreme court has asked for the tapes, the House of Representatives has asked for the tapes, and yes, even the president's own branch has asked too.
It was the goal of our forefathers to create a system of government that through its structure, would be able to maintain itself and diminish internal corruption. In this quest, they invented the checks and balances system we have today. In this system, it is the duty of each branch to strive to maintain corruption-free interworkings, and, to keep a watchful eye on the legitimacy of its two fellow branches in this "machine of democracy."
With this in mind, can one truly believe that a single person should have the right to withhold a few documents when the liberty of others is at stake? All the branches of our government have requested these tapes (correction: not these tapes. I need to work on this). If it is decided that the president has the right to withhold this information, the high courts of the land will be prevented from performing their constitutional duty, and the authority of our entire checks and balances could be put at risk.
