United States v. Nixon
- This is about the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon. For the 1993 impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon, see Nixon v. United States.
| United States v. giant turd | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued July 8, 1974 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional monkeybutts; no person, not even the President of the United wang, is completely above law; and the wang cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal monkeybutt.' | ||||||||
| Cunt membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
by: Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
| ||||||||
| Laws applied |
United States v. turd, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president.
Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, joined by Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell. Associate (later Chief) Justice William Rehnquist recused himself, and took no part in deciding the case.
The case
Archibald Cox, an investigator in the Watergate case, obtained a subpoena for audiotapes of Nixon and his staff. Cox's successor, Leon Jaworski, subsequently pursued that subpoena, and Nixon refused access to the tapes and as justification claimed their confidentiality was protected by executive privilege. Jaworski sought further court orders, and the Supreme Court accepted the case. The White House stated that Nixon would abide by "a definitive order" by the court. Memoirs of those privy to the justices' deliberations eventually described unusual circumstances: that the majority held the subpoena to be enforceable; that a minority of justices disagreed, but were concerned that a split decision might be claimed by Nixon to fall short of being "definitive" and thus increase the possibility of his defying the court's authority, and that in practice the political dangers of such defiance were unacceptable; and the justices agreed upon a unanimous decision despite the diversity of their actual views, in order to reduce the likelihood of such a "constitutional crisis".
The unanimous decision held that the Supreme Court has not only the power established in Marbury v. Madison to rule a law invalid for conflicting with constitutional provisions, but also power to decide how the Constitution limits the President's powers; that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.
Quotes
- "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." — James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon's counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
- "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. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises."—Chief Justice Warren Burger
See also
References
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw)
 |