Apus Court Cases: Us V Nixon

BU SINESS NAMEEXECUTIVE PRIV IL EGE V OL UM E 1 , I SSUE 1

US v. Nixon, 1974

A P R I L 6, 2006

Scandal at Watergate! On June 17, 1972, Frank Willis, Security Guard at Watergate Hotel, discovered that there had been a break-in at the hotel. He discovered a piece of tape on a door leaving it unlocked, and removed it only to find another piece stuck on the door later. Suspecting a break-in, he contacted the D.C. police. The police discovered five men, Bernard Baker, Virgilio González, Eugenio Martínez, James W. McCord, Jr., and Frank Stur-

gis, and arrested them for breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters with “bugging” equipment in their possession. The telephone number of E. Howard Hunt was found in McCord’s notebook, linking the burglars to the White House. The D.C. district attorney conducted an investigation on McCord and eventually determined that he had been receiving payment from the Committee to Re-elect the President or CREEP. On June 23, Nixon was tape-recorded

talking to the CIA about obstructing the FBI investigation, claiming it would be a national security risk. Nixon meticulously taped all White House phone conversations. The court wanted to listen to these tapes as evidence in the court case against the burglars. However, these tapes proved Nixon’s involvement in the plot and so he said that they were confidential and could not be heard. By Conor Gilbert

Controversy in the Constitution As president Nixon argues his rights as president, the public is asking: what are they actually fighting about? In a heated battle of executive

vs. judicial branches, it seems constitutional power is the important part of this case. Because the District Court has obtained information

http://tinyurl.com/l5epb

giving them reason to suspicion Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate Scandal, the recordings of conversations in the Oval Office kept by

Nixon and his administration are highly valuable. By issuing a subpoena for the tapes, the District Court had hoped to easily obtain evi-

US V . N IX O N , 1 97 4

PAGE 2

Controversy in the Constitution (cont.) dence regarding Nixon’s involvement. Due to his power as president, Nixon has made the argument that because he holds executive privilege, he is “allowed an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications”. This means that because he is president, Nixon does not have to hand over any of these tapes. Contrary to this, the judicial branch is arguing that they are the “ultimate arbiters of the Constitution”, meaning that they

are the final interpreters for all matters dealing with the Constitution. Arguing that even though the president is, under normal circumstances, allowed to withhold materials involved in a criminal investigation, the courts still believe that they have the final voice. Unfortunately, adding to the confusion of this governmental mess, each individual government is supposed to interpret the constitution to the best of their abilities, and then each branch is supposed to

respect each other in regards to this opinion. Seeing as this battle shows discourtesy from both branches, the final conclusion will definitely be historically worthy. By Alexandra Braverman

Nixon Resigns! On August 8, 1974 President Nixon resigned from office, so that he would not have to face almost certain removal from office. He gave a televised speech to end his presidency in which he never actually admitted doing anything wrong, and only admitted that

he had made errors in judgment. Gerald Ford replaced Nixon as the 38th President, a man who lost the only time he ever appeared on a ballot. Suspiciously, Ford has pardoned Nixon of all federal crimes, which has angered many Americans and led

http://tinyurl.com/dxd55

them to believe there is some kind of a conspiracy involved. By Casey Sheridan

Results of the Case During Watergate investigations, President Nixon cited the privilege of the President, executive privilege. Nixon wanted to use this executive in the criminal investigation to refuse to show the tape recordings that were subpoenaed by special prosecutor Jaworski. The President claimed the tapes were confi-

dential and dealt with matters of national security. The court ruled unanimously, with the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burger. All members agreed, but the Rehnquist was not present. The court decided that while the president had certain privileges, they were subject to definition by the judi-

ciary, who were the final interpreters of the Constitution. According to the court, given the circumstances of the criminal investigation, Jaworski had the power to overrule presidential autonomy, and so Nixon was forced to yield the damning tapes. By Jenny Chau