The National Archives have been in the news lately, which is new in and of itself. As usual, no one really pays attention to what's going on in the Archives unless they somehow find themselves in the middle of a political debate. Last year, a legal battle to recover 22 million e-mails from the Bush administration briefly put the Archives in the spotlight. Now the Archives' effort to sort through tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to Elena Kagan's tenure in the Clinton White House is also making the news. A few weeks ago, President Obama announced that he would choose Kagan, the current Solicitor General, as his nomination to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. In an increasingly partisan Congress, her nomination has drawn the ire of the minority Republican Party. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has criticized her "activist background" and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says he will vote against her confirmation due to her "lack of judicial experience and her interpretation of the Constitution." One of her supporters, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), points out that although Kagan has never served as a judge, for which many of her detractors criticize her, neither did Justices William Rehnquist of Louis Brandeis, among others.
Since Kagan served as President Clinton's Associate Counsel (1995-96) and as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99), much of her correspondence and writing from this period are subject to release under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. This act was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal that saw the Nixon administration leave behind a mess of missing, altered, and censored records. The PRA allows for public access to presidential records through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests beginning five years after the end of the administration.
Enter the loyal record-keepers at the National Archives, who are busily preparing documentation of all her e-mails, correspondence, and any piece of paper that has her name on it for review by the Senate Judicial Committee. It's no small job either; the archivists are going to have to sort through 168,000 pages of documents to complete the job! Compare this to the mere 70,000 pages of documents they had to review for John Roberts's confirmation hearing a few years earlier. Terri Garner, director of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library (where Kagan's documents are currently held) explains that this process will take some time because the documents "have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line." It's interesting to note that since Kagan worked for the White House in the Internet Age, this has actually increased the amount of paper records she has produced. Even her simplest e-mails have been carefully archived and are now being printed out for the Senate to review.
In this effort, the National Archives are being thrown into the middle of a political debate since Kagan's opponents (who are overwhelmingly Republican) are hoping that they will give them some shred of evidence that will confirm their questioning of her qualifications. The Archives are not interested in these questions, nor should they be. Their only concern is locating any records relating to Kagan, screening them, and making them available to the public if appropriate. They are busily doing this as can be seen here and here. It is troubling that the Archives may be accused of intentionally withholding the "damning" evidence the Republicans seek if they are not satisfied with what the Archives deliver to them. They may also be accused of working too slowly so as to deliver documents without giving the senators enough time to review them fully. Assurances by Susan Cooper, spokesperson for the National Archives, that "no one is dragging their feet here," may not be enough to dispel such accusations by Kagan's opponents. The Archives are a non-partisan institution which should have no political agenda. Their only goal is to preserve the nation's history for posterity. In order for them to do this effectively, they should be allowed to carry out their work without the risk if being dragged into a destructive political morass.
References:
Gerstein, J. (2010, May 20). Archives Frets Over Kagan Docs Deadline. Politico. Retrieved May 31, 2010 from http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Archives_frets_over_Kagan_docs_deadline.html
Inhofe Says He'll Oppose Kagan Nomination, (2010, May 10). Yahoo News Retrieved May 31, 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100510/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_inhofe
Meckler, L. (2010, May 20). Trove or Trouble? 168,000 Pages of Kagan. Wall Street Journal Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/20/trove-or-trouble-168000-pages-of-kagan/
Millions of Missing Bush Admin. E-Mails Found. (2009, Dec. 14). MSNBC.com Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34419592/ns/politics/
Official Biography of Elena Kagan. (2009). Department of Justice Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://www.justice.gov/osg/meet-osg.html
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. (1978). 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22 Retrieved May 31, from http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
Hey, Jared. What a well-linked post--this is one of the ways I think the Internet is making information seeking (especially regarding current events) easier. I mentioned in class the other day about how news sources online can be overwhelming with their information, but I think providing lots of links within an article is so helpful. That way, you never have to "give up" on any one article--if it references things you aren't up to speed on, well, then, hey there--click this little link and you can GET caught up! It's a great way to let people choose for themselves how far they want to dive into the information you are presenting. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAgree--the links really helped me pop in and out of this story. I liked the way you set the scene and unfolded events. What could have been overly complicated came off as pretty clear and straightforward.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed with this blog (and the one I participated in) is that it could benefit from a tag cloud. The posts are all so different; tags would help to scan for topics.