0
The Watergate Case was filed as United States v. Nixon,418 US 683 (1974)
The US Supreme Court voted unanimously, 8-0 (Justice Rehnquist recused himself for conflict of interest), to order President Nixon to surrender the Watergate tapes to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. The decision affirmed the District Court ruling upholding the legality of Jaworski's subpoena for the Watergate tapes in the face of Nixon's claim of Executive Privilege.
The Court ordered Nixon to relinquish the tapes, citing the constitutional rights of the six men accused of conspiracy, under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
Constitutional Argument
In US v. Nixon, then-President Nixon had a collection of secret audio tapes containing conversations deemed relevant to the Watergate investigation. The Special Prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed the tapes as evidence of conspiracy between top level government officials and the President. Nixon was labeled an unindicted conspirator, making him a subject of legitimate scrutiny.
President Nixon refused to produce the tapes, claiming he was immune from the subpoena under the doctrine of Executive Privilege, the implied constitutional right of the President to withhold information from the other branches of government (Article II). According to Nixon, the conversations were intra-branch, protected by the Separation of Powers, and non-justiciable (not amenable to resolution by a court) because the court lacked jurisdiction over the communications.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of Executive Privilege in general, but held that it did not provide absolute and unqualified protection, except possibly in the case of military and diplomatic affairs, which were irrelevant to the case. The Court also argued the judiciary had jurisdiction over the matter under Article III because the constitution was not intended to protect the President from legitimate criminal prosecution.
In response to an argument that Special Counsel Leon Jaworski didn't have authority to subpoena the tapes, the Court held that 28 USC Sec 503 made the Attorney General head of the Department of Justice, charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes. Congress provided that the AG could delegate authority to the Special Prosecutor, and that Nixon could not rescind this power.
Further, the fundamental demands of Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment Confrontation of the witness or evidence against the accused superseded President Nixon's Executive Privilege.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the Rule of Four in the US Supreme Court?
The Rule of Four means four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case in order for it to be accepted on appeal. If four or more justices think the case is worth the Court's time, then the Supreme Court will issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court ordering them to send the case files to the Supreme Court, and the case will be placed on the docket.
How did the Supreme Court rule in cases affecting the right's of Chinese immigrants?
The Supreme Court ruling meant that Chinese immigrants could attend regular schools. They were able to get a better education.
This entity has the final rule on the establishment clause?
The Supreme Court of the United States has the final rule on the establishment clause. The SCOTUS was established in 1789.
How did the supreme court rule in cases affecting the rights of Chinese immigrants?
The supreme court ruled in cases affecting the rights of Chinese immigrants in a fair manner. In its ruling, the supreme court that the number of Chinese immigrants coming into the country should be limited. However, any Chinese immigrants who were in the country would have security of tenure in their jobs.
How did the supreme court rule in cases affecting the rights of chinese immigrant?
The supreme court ruled several years ago that the amount of chinese immigrants should be limited in the united states, but that any chinese immigrants that were already here would be secure in their jobs.
What supreme court case diminished the scope of the exclusionary rule?
Supreme Court cases diminished the scope of the exclusionary rule?
If the supreme court does not rule on an appeal case what is the result?
The decision then remains what it was when appealed to the Supreme Court.
What is the Rule of Four in the US Supreme Court?
The Rule of Four means four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case in order for it to be accepted on appeal. If four or more justices think the case is worth the Court's time, then the Supreme Court will issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court ordering them to send the case files to the Supreme Court, and the case will be placed on the docket.
The Supreme Court case of Mapp v Ohio established the?
exclusionary rule
What is the rule of four in the supreme court?
The Rule of Four has nothing to do with arguing before the US Supreme Court. It refers to the number of US Supreme Court justices who must agree to hear a case before the case can be accepted on appeal. If four justices sign off on a petition for writ of certiorari (request for review), the case will be added to the Court's docket. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How many US Supreme Court justices must agree to hear an appeal?
The US Supreme Court determines whether to hear a case according to the Rule of Four. If at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agree, they will grant certiorari and hear the case.
How did the supreme court rule over the ring v Arizona case?
Ruth Baber
What did the Supreme Court rule the case near v Minnesota?
That a state could not punish
What did the supreme court rule in the case regarding the sedition act?
It ruled the act constitutional.
Which Supreme Court case was responsible for the creation of the exclusionary rule?
chimel v. califorina
What did the Supreme court rule in a case regarding Sedition Act?
It ruled the act constitutional.
What did the Supreme Court rule in a case regarding the sedition acf?
It ruled the act constitutional
