| Abstract: | The Iran-Contra affair highlights the ongoing contest between Congress and the President over access to information. To carry out their constitutional functions, each branch needs information and the ability to protect the disclosure of that information. In the case of Iran-Contra, legitimate protection of information was replaced by lies and deception on the part of Executive officials, the pursuit of contradictory policies by the Executive Branch, and the violation of congressional statutes. Congress was denied the information it needed to discharge constitutional responsibilities, requiring it to reassert legislative prerogatives by tightening oversight statutes and scrutinizing presidential nominees who had some involvement in Iran-Contra. As a result of prosecutions by the Independent Counsel, a number of Executive officials and private citizens who participated in Iran-Contra have already pled guilty or been found guilty by Federal juries. Other than some temporary mending of fences and promises of good-faith, it is uncertain whether Iran-Contra will yield more permanent and beneficial lessons. |
