Watergate scam. Usa Vs Nixon - Term Paper Example

No: USA Vs NIXON USA vs. Nixon case in fact created a history in terms of discretionary power of the Presidentof the United States of America. The larger bench which comprised of 8 judges of the apex court led by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger unanimously held the then President Nixon responsible for Watergate scam and restricted the unbridled power of the President of America (Kutler 508). The mentioned scandal came to surface during the year 1972 when the electioneering campaign between Mr. George McGovern and Mr. Richard Nixon was on the boom. Well before winning the Presidential election, five people inclusive of white house staff and political workers made their unauthorized entry into the Democratic Headquarters located at Watergate complex in Washington D.C (Kutler 510). In order to investigate the matter of doors broken opened of Democratic Headquarters by the staff and political workers of Nixon’s Party who run the electioneering campaign aims at to steal material information and important files that relates to election strategy. Upon disclosure of the committed crime, initially Mr. Nixon assigned the task to Mr. Cox to investigate the matter. Later on he dismissed him for non-co-operation. The forced departure of Mr. Cox, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Ruckelshaus considered in the American history as “Saturday Night Massacre” (Trachtman 131). With the dismissal of said gentleman, mounting public pressures compelled Mr. Nixon to appoint another investigator. Hence, Mr. Jaworski appointed to probe the matter. To accomplish the task he got subpoena order that enables him to have an access to relevant tapes and documents which were in the possession of Mr. Nixon. The conversations that contains in the tapes led to the involvement of indicted persons in the scam (Trachtman 131). On the disclosure of his involvement in the Watergate scam, Nixon’s counsel requested the competent court of law to quash president from accountability since he is as powerful as Louis XIV for a term of four years; therefore he is not answerable to any court of law except the impeachment court. The competent court of law turned down the plea and ordered the president to hand over the investigative material to the investigator (Kutler 510). On the order of the subordinate court, the attorney of Mr. Nixon referred the matter to the Supreme Court and the court hardly taken three weeks time to decide the case. In that case the apex court focused on two issues a) indictment of president b) president prerogative of immunity. Firstly the court found involvement of Mr. President in conversation with the staff of white house concerning Watergate scam. Secondly the court rejected the plea of absolute power of the president. The president was of the view that being a president he has the absolute right and privilege of immunity. Further, the court held that only the attorney general void the prosecution commission which he refused to do so, therefore, the executive branch and other two branches are bound to implement it. The president had no choice but to enforce the decision in its true spirit (Kutler 511). The fear of impeachment and prosecution in the Senate which led to the removal of President forced him to resign from his office in August 1974. So far he was the only president in the history of United States of America who resigned from his office. This has further established the authority of Supreme Court as judicial branch to monitor the activities of executive branch if any of its action is ultra virus to the constitution and the law of the land in vogue (Trachtman 133). Chief Justice Warren Burger of the Supreme Court of America in his land mark decision held that "However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high level communication without more can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” (Lively and Weaver 3). The apex court while acknowledging the right of invoking of executive privilege was of the view that an absolute and unqualified protection in case under reference is not acceptable except in some cases that relates to military and diplomatic affairs. The court further observed that the judiciary has the right under Article 111 since the constitution was not in favor of providing protection to the president from criminal prosecution if found involved (U.S. Supreme Court). The tapes in question contains the conversation of the indicted persons are sufficient incrementing evidence in the criminal prosecution which determined the fundamental rights of the defendants under Fifth Amendment, Due Process clause and the Sixth Amendment linked with Confrontation Clause. The tapes, telephone calls and documents can be held as material evidence in the mentioned case except the cases concerning to the protection of secrecy of military, national and the diplomatic interest since evidence for such cases is not easily accessible and may harm the reputation of its image (U.S. Supreme Court). The point to ponder is that the order of the District Court was impugned order and can be challengeable in the court of competent jurisdiction. Since in this case appeal was timely filed and all required documents made available to consider and finalize the decision of the district court under section 28 U.S.C. 1254 (1), 2101 (e). Obstructions in the way of expeditious disposal of cases should be discouraged. Quashment of president in the matter under reference was denied. The court insisted on production of trial related material (Lively and Weaver 4). The court felt that consistent hold, defeat the very purpose of expeditious proceedings. In the case under review defendant showed their resistance in providing the required material to be used for evidences under the umbrella of president’s immunity (Lively and Weaver 4). After the rejection of quashment plea of the defendants by the district court the president and others have no other option but to invoke the jurisdiction of apex court for expert legal opinion regarding president’s absolute right and protection of immunity under the law. In case of his denial to comply with the decision of the court, contempt proceedings can be initiated against him under the law. This would open the Pandora’s Box and endless debate on the issue that whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against the president for his misdeeds. If it was initiated it can be for a longer period of time say for weeks, months or a year to decide in view the material questions involved in it (Lively and Weaver 4). The president counsel challenge the competency of the court to hear and to issue impugned subpoena order to get tapes and sensitive informative materials that requires for criminal investigation since the matter was inter related between a subordinate official and the high official of executive branch, hence no judicial intervention was required. In view the attorney of the president the differences between the two officials of the same branch did not culminate on the case or arising any controversy that can be challengeable in the court of competent jurisdiction (Friedman 1974). It is the duty of the executive branch to determine whether the case can be prosecuted. He cited the case of Cox v. Hauberg (1965) wherein it was argued that the president authority in determining the evidence is final. By virtue of constitution president has empowered special prosecutor in certain instances but did not authorize claim of privileges in all matters which is the absolute authority of president and cannot be delegated to the sub ordinate officials (Scheb and Stephens 206). In the case of US vs. ICC the court was of the opinion that courts should look behind the curtains to see whether the presented case is justifiable or controversial to prosecute. In his support he cited the following cases: Powell vs. McCormack (1969), ICC vs. Jersey City (1944), Chapman vs. FPC (1953), Secretary of Agriculture vs. United States (1954), FMB vs. Isbrandtsen Company (1958) etc. (Scheb and Stephens 207). Here, the important question arises that what sort of cases requires evidence to be sought. Of course it is criminal prosecution that requires evidence or evidences to prosecute the criminal cases. Under article-11 of the constitution, Attorney General can initiate criminal proceedings against the officials of the government of United States. He can also appoint subordinate officials to assist him in disposing of criminal cases against the government officials / discharging of assigned duties. The Attorney General can further delegate his power to special prosecutor with specific authority linked with time line. Therefore, Special Prosecutor exercises his power to protect the immunity of an official in performing his / her duties (Scheb and Stephens 207). In case of Accardi vs. Shaughnessy (1954), it was held by the Court that Attorney General may exercise his / her operative parts of regulations although the delegated authority to the Board was his discretion on amending the regulations. However, it is academically possible for the Attorney General to alter or to revoke the regulations that defines the authority of Special Prosecutor. If it is not done the regulations are very much alive and it is binding on executive branch to honor and ensure its enforcement. The delegation of power to the Special Prosecutor by the Attorney General cannot be taken aback unless amendments in the operative part are made in the regulations with the consensus of designated congressmen (Friedman 1974). Under the ordinary circumstances issuance of subpoena order and its resistance make it controversial. However, alone issuance of cited order by the competent judiciary lacks the constitutional requirement. The Prosecutor General should decide whether the collected evidences can be connected with the case and its admissibility in the court of law. In general cases issuance of said order by the court is implemented. However, in specific cases where constitution provides immunity to the president it is challengeable in the court of law via district court to Supreme Court. The issue under discussion falls within the scope of Art.111 (Mishkin 78). The case in point is that both the parties are important stakeholders of the executive branch and actively involved in it. The issue is that one is the commanding officer and the other one is the subordinate officer. The subordinate officer has no choice but to follow the instruction of his boss. The question is that whether the action taken by the Chief Executive was in line with the provisions of law and the constitution (Mishkin 78). The other view is that the case in question met the requirement of Rule 17©. The insistence on quashment of protection of immunity on the grounds that the discreet conversations were going on between the President and his close aides have nothing to do with the public, therefore not to disclose to the public in the national interest. The first contention was that the judiciary should not encourage upon the authority of executive as far as the president’s claim of privilege is concerned. The apex court further observed that during the performance of constitutional assignments each organ of the state should go through the concerned provision of the law and its interpretation so that the government may not ashamed of its acts of ignorance of law (U.S. Supreme Court). The American judicial system demands federal courts to interpret the law. The question arises here that whether the action of the executive branch is in accordance with the provision of the constitution and the existing laws or in contravention with the provision of the constitution or the laws. The ultimate interpreter of any provision of the constitution is the superior judiciary. The mentioned theory can be found in the cases of Powell vs. McCormack and in Baker vs. Carr (Scheb and Stephens 208). With regard to absolute right of the president in terms of immunity, it was held by the Supreme Court that President is not above the law and the constitution. The power of the president for the immunity is limited and clipped to some extent. It was rightly said as far as the power of the president is concerned that power corrupts and absolute powers corrupts absolutely. The law and the constitution are very much clear on the authority of each organ of the state (Lively and Weaver 4). The three organs of the state i.e. Parliament, Judiciary and the Executive should work within their domain. Any of the organs, works out of their ambit may create nuisance for another organ that led to destabilize the country. The president may pass on confidential information to his close aides provided he assured that any leakage may not have its devastating effects. However, he may not allow the information to make it public if it relates to National Security, Military Operations and Diplomatic ties with other countries (Lively and Weaver 5). There cannot be two opinions on the powers and privileges that comes out from the constitutional authority such as maintainability of secrecy of the documents and the information if divulge may have the negative impact on the country and the ruling government as well. The Attorney of the President told the court that absolute privileges of the President, in fact the product of doctrine of Separation of Authority (U.S. Supreme Court). Now it is clear with the decision of the Supreme Court that the power of incumbent for an executive privilege is not absolute and it cannot deny the rights of competent court of law to call the evidences needed for criminal prosecution. To resolve the ambiguity in terms of absolute power of the president it may be referred to superior judiciary to be guided. However, under the separation of power scheme the president has the privilege not to divulge the information to other branches of the government. Where the top notch level communication is involved, the power of the president is absolute and cannot be questionable. In view of the judges of the apex court the dispute should have been resolved within the branches rather referring it to the court of law (U.S. Supreme Court). Last but not least the power of the President regarding absolute right to hold the information and documents from other branches of the State and protection of immunity is decided once for all by the competent court of law leaving no ambiguity for future course of action under the mentioned scenario. The Supreme Court had closed the chapter of absolute right of the President for good. Misuse of mentioned authority had compelled the president to resign. Had he not resigned from his office he would have faced impeachment proceedings (U.S. Supreme Court). Works Cited Friedman, Leon. United States v. Nixon: the President before the Supreme Court. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1974. Kutler, Stanley L. The Wars of Watergate. London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992. Lively, Donald E., and Russell L. Weaver. Contemporary Supreme Court cases: Landmark Decisions since Roe v Wade. Chicago: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. 3-5. Print. Mishkin, Paul J. "Great Cases and Soft Law: A Comment on United States v. Nixon." UCLA L. Rev. 22. (1974): 76-81. Print. Segal, Jeffrey A. "Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962-1981." American Political Science Review. 78.4 (1984): 891-900. Print. Scheb, John M., and Otis H. Stephens. American Constitutional Law: Sources of Power and Restraint. London: Cengage Learning, 2007. 206-208. Print. Trachtman, Michael G. The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 34 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life. Sterling, 2007. U.S. Supreme Court, . "United States v. Nixon." Find law, For Legal Professionals. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business, 2011. Web. 16 Dec 2011. . Read More