US. Vs. Richard Nixon - Research Paper Example

The United s vs. Nixon (1974 An Analysis of the Case Introduction The United s vs. Nixon (1974) case was a milestone in the judicial history of the country. It was a crucial precedent that universally ensured a president’s accountability by limiting his immunity from his legal obligation and judicial process in the form of ‘executive privilege’. The matter of fact of the case was that Nixon attempted to label his power to prevent the subpoenaed tapes from being exposed as “executive privilege” as a form of presidential immunity. But from a judicial perspective the president’s attorney St Clair fails to justify his claim since investigation into the Watergate burglary showed clear evidences against the president’s claim. Since it was evident that the tapes might contain some contents that transgressed the arena of a president’s executive responsibility, the executive privilege of the President could not deny the judicial authority’s access to criminal evidence in a judicial proceeding. Historical Background of the United States vs. Nixon Case During the presidential campaign in June 1972, a group of burglars equipped with cameras and bugging devices were arrested while attempting to break into the Democratic Party Headquarters in Watergate. Soon in a subsequent police investigation, it became evident that the Nixon officials and even the President himself might be involved in this burglary. Though Nixon government denied any involvement with the crime, it made several attempts to cover up the connections of the burglary to the Oval Office. But under the crushing pressure of the Congress and the public, Nixon was forced to appoint Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski successively as the special prosecutors. Meanwhile it was revealed that Nixon had several records of the conversations that might contain the evidence of the President’s cover-up of the burglary. The so-far assumption of the President’s involvement in the Watergate break-in was boosted up, when the presiding judge received a letter, from one of the burglars, that spoke of bribery in return for their silence in order to save those who were involved in the break in. Consequently, Leon Jaworski obtained a subpoena that demanded that Nixon would produce certain tapes and documents before the court. Though Nixon released several edited versions of the tapes, he claimed that the materials were “protected under executive privilege” (). Also Nixon’s attorney St. Clair argued for the President’s absolute power to withhold information from being released: “The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment” (Kutler 131). Constitutional Issues and Arguments in the Case At a stage, the questions were raised: 1. whether the President is entitled, by the Constitution induced separation of powers, with an absolute power to maintain confidentiality of information from the court or other branches of the government, 2. whether the President could protect information under executive privilege, 3. whether “the claim of executive privilege damages the precedent set by the 5th Amendment, which ensures due process” (). On the State’s side, it was argued that the President does not have an absolute power to withhold information, as the court said, “Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” (US v. Nixon). Neither the president’s executive privilege should come into conflict with a court’s demand for evidence in a criminal proceeding. Also as far as the question of justice is related to a case, the court can properly render justice, as in this regard Warren Burger wrote, When a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based…..on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial…(US v. Nixon) On the other hand, the President’s argument has been described in judicial documents as following: “The President's contentions (a) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable [a term used by the Court] as an "intra-executive" conflict and (b) that the judiciary lacked authority to review the President's assertion of executive privilege” (US v. Nixon). Decision and Rationale of the Court The Court agreed that the President should not obstruct the criminal proceeding by withholding the tapes that might serve as evidences. Also the president’s claim of ‘executive privilege’ in the present circumstance is an unqualified one, while rejecting the President's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" (US v. Nixon). Consequently the court unanimously ruled that since there is "sufficient likelihood [proven by Leon Jaworski] that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," (US v. Nixon) President Nixon must release the subpoenaed tapes in order to help the court in criminal proceeding. In this regard, Chief Justice Warren Burger opined as following: “The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.” (US v. Nixon) Also Burger wrote that confidentiality under executive privilege may offend a citizen’s constitution-approved rights to get justice. Since the 6th Amendment of the Constitution states that in a criminal proceeding, a defendant has the right to obtain evidences or witnesses in his favor, the President should help the state to obtain the evidences not as a plaintiff, but a president. Otherwise he would most-likely damage the state’s right. Warren Burger also wrote, “The Fifth Amendment also guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” (US v. Nixon) Conclusion According to the court, Nixon’s claim for absolute power of enjoying executive privilege was an unqualified one. The immediate reaction to the court’s decision was the restoration of the trust of the common people in the existing political system of the country. Also it became clear that the President’s power of executive privilege is not absolute, when it comes to judicial proceedings. Therefore a president’s accountability was established. Eventually President Nixon was forced to resign. Works Cited Kutler, Stanley. The Wars of Watergate. W. W. Norton & Company. 1992 US Supreme Court. “United States vs. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)”, The District of Columbia Circuit. No. 73-1766. Available at Read More