Could you please tell me where, exactly, it says in the constitution that employees of the executive branch do not have to testify before congress, when subpoenaed?

My brief research into “Executive Privilege” reveals that the only precedent for this is US v Nixon, where the court compelled the Nixon white house to turn over the watergate tapes. The court agreed that there was some priviledge in the Article III powers of the white house: there was a “valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” They specifically said in their decision that:

To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article II

This is the exact power the Bush white house is asserting–an “absolute privilege”. What I find terrifying however, is that if Bush continues to stonewall this might make it to the supreme court, and I would not be shocked if the Roberts court decided to hand absolute privilege to Bush. Some people are saying this is all a stalling tactic to “run out the clock” so that Bush & co are out of office before any fruit can come from these investigations. I actually think this is not the case. They are asserting this power because they believe that they have it. Cheney has not minced words when he describes the “unitary executive.” This crowd is authoritarian and they think that they have absolute power and discretion.

Supremes get rid of affirmative action. This is what judicial activism looks like.

More from talkleft.

Make no mistake, yesterday’s supreme court decision should come as no surprise. The christian right is nothing if not organized and disciplined. The great thing about trying to organize a group of authoritarians is they love being told what to do and they always do what they are told. Once the leadership had set their sights on the courts it was a matter of time before they succeed in what they always called “legislating from the bench”.

Here is a quick roundup of good posts on this:

Defending Choice: why it is good politics This is important because a lot of (male) democrats like to talk as if the abortion issue is one we can throw under the bus to improve electoral chances.

A great article in Salon about “a decision that might as well have come with a gift card made out to President Bush’s base“.

Where the stand via NY Times.

Take My Uterus, Please from pandagon.

And finally, I strongly recommend, in addition to the appaling decision linked by Vijay, Justice Ginsberg’s great dissent (pdf).