Irrefutable Prerogative

Irrefutable Prerogative is—according to every elected official—an inherent right of the governing to withhold information if revealing that information would either

1. compromise national security;
2. make people angry;
3. provide damning evidence of criminal activity that would result in impeachment, removal from office, and the levying of criminal charges; or
4. make someone cry.

Historically the officials invoking Irrefutable Prerogative state that they must use this right because it is in the interest of preventing a typically unnamed someone from crying; though further investigation ultimately reveals that the true use is to avoid (2) and (3).

Ever since the coining of the phrase "Irrefutable Prerogative" by the first democratically elected individual, there has been much debate as to its applicability and, in fact, its legality. Numerous treatises have been written by governors, presidents, and countless representatives extolling the virtue of Irrefutable Prerogative as well as defending its legal status. It, as they argue, is by its very nature not only lawful, but indisputably so—otherwise how could it be called irrefutable?

Critics point out that just because something says it's incontestable, doesn't make it so—but this is generally dismissed by the authorities as a tactless assault on the unassailable spurned by the petulant bitterness of a soulless individual whose jealousy of the sacred is only exceeded by the inverse of their intellect. This retort is readily accepted by most righteous observers while the unrighteous ones have an abnormally high disappearance rate.