ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

United States vs Nixon

Updated on September 28, 2009

United States v. Nixon

            During the term of Pres. Nixon, a criminal case was filed in the District Court against several individuals and named the president as unindicted coconspirator (418 U.S. 683). Among the charges filed were conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of justice (418 U.S. 683). In line with the criminal investigation, the court issued sub peona duces tecum to produce the Oval Office tapes to the Special Prosecutor (Finkelman 311). However, the executive filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the ground of executive privilege and that the case should be between the executive branches only. In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

            The Supreme Court reasoned out that the defense of intra- branch dispute without reasonable justification cannot defeat the federal jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court ignored the separation of power and the executive privilege raised by the president. According to the president, the communication and the documents being requested are of utmost confidentiality. However, the Supreme Court concluded that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” (418 U.S. 683).

            In this landmark case, the decision has proven that executive privilege is not absolute. The privilege that is implied by the Constitution has been said to be strictly construed and consistent with the purpose of the privilege (Find Law for Legal Professionals, n. pag.). The separation of power doctrine is also not absolute because the executive branch will always be under scrutiny by other branch so as with other branches. In this particular case, the Supreme Court concluded that automatic immunity from legal processes has not been granted to the presidents (Hall and McGuire 301).

            Another significance of the case is that it extended the range of the judicial authority (Rossiter, Rossiter, and Longaker 196). Despite the claim of the president of the separation of power, the judiciary continued hearing the case on the basis that the issue is within the judicial department to review. In addition, the executive privilege was not even enough to bar the court from hearing the case and from dismissing the subpoena. More importantly, the Court “reaffirmed the truth by subjecting the President’s claim of discretionary power to the limits of law” (Rossiter, Rossiter, and Longaker 196). Although president have been bestowed with immunities and privileges, such power cannot override the common laws that involves the right of the public to scrutinize and be informed issues concerning national interest.

            Additionally, the case presented the effectiveness of the court in checking the secrecy of the executive department (Finkelman 311). Moreover, it has been serving as the partner of media and Congress in upholding the right of the people to participate in government debates. Furthermore, it serves as guardian in preventing executive activities that would put the nation in danger. Notably, the decision was enough to prompt the resignation of the president. Hence, the power of the judiciary does not only extend to interpreting the law but it has a greater impact on the life of the person against whom the decision is made.

            Today, this case is of paramount importance because of the threat that executive decisions poses. When the president speaks about national security, the civil liberties of the citizens are always at risk. Through the decision of the court, the executive’s decision is vulnerable to legal questions. By reason of such vulnerability, the line separating the three departments has slimmed down. It can be noted that the presidents who served after Nixon have been through judicial scrutiny also because of their decisions and activities. The separation of power is still a firm principle but in claiming such as a defense cannot stand alone if not supported by justifiable reasons. Meanwhile, in the case of Nixon, the Court found his claims of privilege and separation of power insufficient because there were no further assertions to support it. Usually, in several cases, the defense used in claiming executive privilege is national security. In claiming such, the president has the burden of proving with justifiable reasons to establish the danger on national security.

For reasons of harmony in governance and others, the principle of separation of power has been inculcated. The three branches of the government acts independently. In line with independence, one department cannot meddle with the activities and decisions of the other. However, such rule is not absolute. While acting within the bounds of their Constitutional duties and responsibilities, each department can legally question the other when the decision is perceived to have a great effect on the nation. This is evident in the cases of Nixon involving Oval tapes and the pentagon Papers. Further, in these cases, the right of the people to know the truth related to government has been upheld as against executive privilege and separation principle.

Finally, the decision of the Court in the case of Nixon greatly affects the citizens and the future decision. By reason of the decision, the citizens are informed of their right to participate in issues regarding national security. In addition, citizens can validly question the decisions of the president especially when it poses danger and when the civil liberties are at risk of being curtailed. On the part of the judiciary, the decision has become part of the law. This jurisprudence can be a strong basis in deciding cases that are relevantly similar to that of Nixon. It is noteworthy that some provisions of the Constitution are conflicting. As such, it is necessary to draw a line and through the judiciary, contrasting rights can be resolved fairly and intelligently.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)