In Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth, Raoul Berger demonstrates that the presidential claim of authority to withhold information is without historical foundation. This pioneer study is a trenchant refutation of the self-serving presidential “precedents” upon which the executive branch relies. By examining the Parliamentary and constitutional basis for the “claims” of privilege, Berger exposes the shallow and disingenuous “proofs” now on record. His study balances the possible investigatory excesses against the evils which have resulted from resorting to executive secrecy, and Berger maintains that our democratic system is imperiled by the assumption that the people and the Congress may know only as much as the President considers appropriate. If there must be secrecy, Berger concludes, its bounds should be determined by the courts, not by the branch of government interested in concealing unratified policies or misconduct. One of the author's prime examples of how misconstrued power and secrecy have led to disastrous results is the escalation by stealth of America's involvement in the war in Asia. Berger's history is the most complete account of executive privilege ever attempted. His epilogue brings the whole question of executive secrecy up to date.

The little understood yet volcanic power of impeachment lodged in the Congress is dissected through history by the nation's leading legal scholar on the subject. Berger offers authoritative insight into "high crimes and misdemeanors." He sheds new light on whether impeachment is limited to indictable crimes, on whether there is jurisdiction to impeach for misconduct outside of office, and on whether impeachment must precede indictment. In an addition to the book, Berger finds firm footing in contesting the views of one-time Judge Robert Bork and President Nixon's lawyer, James St. Clair.