United States v. Nixon [1974]

United States v. Nixon [1974]

Introduction

The early 1970s was a time when the United States was experiencing an increasing level of distrust in the National Government. According to the pentagon papers, the American citizens were deceived about Vietnam. President Nixon authorized the United States to attack Cambodia; hence the National Guard opened fire at a Kent State University protest, which came as a shock to Americans. The attack claimed the lives of four students. Nixon, at an attempt to cover up his illegal actions as well as those of his administration, added more fuel to the fire.

Facts of the Case

In June 1972, the authorities arrested five men who they found in the premises of the Democratic National Committee’s offices in the Watergate complex in Washington D.C. The men were armed with cameras and bugging equipment. Soon after the incident, police stumbled upon a discovery that the burglars were directly or indirectly working under the committee’s instructions to Re-elect the president. President Nixon and his campaign leaders, however, denied the allegations of having any connections with the occurrence.

The five men together with E. Howard Hunt Jr., G. Gordon Liddy, a former Nixon aide, and a lawyer for the committee to Re-elect the president were convicted for burglary. After a while, one of the convicted men sent a letter to the judge who presided over the case. The contents of the letter included information regarding payoffs that the burglars were given to stay silent. The men had committed perjury in court to protect other people who also took part in the break-in.

In 1973, a Senate select committee started to conduct an investigation, which revealed that top members of the Nixon administration were party to covering up the break-in alongside other illegal activities. The investigation further revealed that Nixon had put up a taping system that captured and recorded all the conversations with his advisors. A special prosecutor that the court appointed to carry out a probe on the Watergate scandal issued a subpoena for the tapes. Nixon, however, refused to abide by the subpoena, on claims that they were privileged information, under executive privilege. Nixon finally agreed to release the tapes, having erased some portions. Another special prosecutor eventually made a request to the United States Supreme Court to order Nixon to release all the tapes, including the ones he had erased.

Issues Arising from the Case

The Nixon Case raises constitutional issues, mainly the issue of separation of powers. The question is whether the separation of powers that the constitution provides for, accords absolute power to the president to withhold information from the rest of the branches of government (Wittekind 2013). If the president lacks absolute power, should President Nixon claim executive privilege under the circumstances mentioned herein? Should this dispute be settled by the executive or the judicial branch? Does claiming executive privilege damage the privilege that the 5^th amendment set, which ensures due process?

The United States argued that the president does not have absolute power to claim executive privilege. The courts must have access to all the necessary evidence for criminal proceedings, hence, executive privilege cannot be invoked to deny them access. The proper court with the jurisdiction to handle this matter is the federal court (Wittekind, 2013). President Nixon argued that the constitution gives the president privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. He adds that the power is absolute and is more crucial in situations with high-level communication. He asserts that the executive branch has proper mandate to handle the matter, and not the courts.

Decision and Rationale

The courts made a unanimous decision asking President Nixon to hand over the tapes. The opinion of the court was read out by Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burger wrote;

“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 Article III.”

Burger then digressed and focused on the possible damage of a confidentiality privilege to the constitutional rights of the citizens. There are constitutional dimensions to the right to produce all evidence at a criminal trial (Hartman et al., 2004). The Sixth Amendment accords every criminal defendant a right to be confronted with the witnesses against him as well as having compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor. The Fifth Amendment additionally gives a guarantee that there has to be a due process before any person is deprived of liberty. The courts have a manifest duty to vindicate those guarantees, as well as making sure that every evidence that is relevant and admissible is produced in court (Herda, 1975). The court asserted that a President is not allowed to withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution just because he is the President.

A few days before that, the House of Judiciary passed three impeachment articles. Nixon became the first President to resign from presidency in the history of the United States, on 9^TH August 1974, two weeks after the ruling was given. His resignation was for the purpose of avoiding the probable process of impeachment by the full House of Representatives, and later conviction by the Senate.

Personal Opinion

United States v. Nixon is a case that established on of the key principles, that no one is above the law, including the president. The decision of the case is relevant up to date, 44 years after it was made. When issues arise on whether the President should respond to a subpoena, the decision plays a pivotal role. The decision attempts to suggest that the federal judiciary has an almost non-existent role in settling disputes between the President and other branches of the government. Nixon was accorded a fair trial as his interests were in conflict with the interests of the judicial branch. A fair trial is one where both parties fully disclose all the relevant information.

Conclusion

The justices reasoning were that the interests of the judges in fair administration of criminal justice carried more weight than the interests of President Nixon in hiding the contents of the tape. The only issue before the court was whether it was right for the trial judge to privately inspect the tapes so as to establish if they were necessary for a fair trial to take place. The justices went on to say that there would be instances where the interests of the President to have confidentiality would carry more weight than the interests of the Judicial branch. Such instances include secret communication involving diplomatic, military, or sensitive national security secrets.

References

Hartman, G., Roy, M. & Tate, C. L. (2004). “United States v. Nixon.” Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York: Facts On File, Inc, 2004. American History Online.

Herda, D. J. (1975). United States v. Nixon: Watergate and the President (Landmark Supreme Court Cases). Enslow Pub Inc

Wittekind, E. (2013). The United States v. Nixon. The Watergate Scandal and Limits to U.S Presidential Power. Abdo Publishing