Parties involved in the case
This case pitted a sitting president against a special prosecutor, who is an officer attached to the attorney general’s (AG) office. These events followed the issuance of an indictment against the staff of the White House, citing the desecration of federal statutes by the said members. The prosecutor operates under the AG’s office, making him a public servant just like the president.
Facts of the case
The prosecutor filed a suit compelling the production of tapes and documents, which had a direct bearing on the outcome of the court process. This disclosure took place before the commencement of the hearing. The intention was to use them as a backup for the case as per the suit lodged in court. The district courthouse concluded that the material was indeed classified, hence ruling in his favor. This move angered the president, who filed a counter-motion, asking the court to withdraw the case, terming it an in-house conflict. This meant it did not merit a hearing in the court. He also alleged that the judiciary required power to evaluate his execution of power, which they lacked when the incident occurred. The court stood by its earlier verdict as it waited for the outcome of a review from a higher court after the president initiated an appeal. The president and the prosecutor launched further appeals and saw both of them upheld by the court (The Washington Post, 2010).
Legal Issues in the case
Several legal conflicts existed in this case. Foremost, whether the president could be compelled to issue confidential materials was markedly debatable. In some quarters, it was argued that the president was well in his right to hold on to the tapes due to the authority granted to him by the constitution. Proponents also argued that the district court lacked the capacity to issue demands on the president. This prompted the president and his legal representatives to seek refuge through an appeal to the high court. It should be noted that the republic also lodged an appeal to the high court.
On the other hand, it was argued that the president’s decision was out of order. This is partly attributed to the possibility that the said tapes would influence the conclusion of the legal tussle. It was also brought to the court’s attention, that the tapes had no bearing on national security; hence, no legal provision supported the president’s decision to hold on to them. The court upheld the confidentiality of the material by calling for a private session in which the material was to be scrutinized (Justia, 1974).
Another legal issue manifested in the debate is the conflict between the president and the prosecutor. Mr. Nixon objected to the suit, arguing that the conflict was in-house and did not meet the threshold for jurisprudence. This was treated as a mere assertion, leading to its dismissal in line with the applicable judicial precedent. It is noteworthy, that the prosecutor is empowered, by the AG, to act against executive orders in the course of discharging his duties as long as regulations remain enforced. One can; therefore, conclude that the prosecutor was well in his right to seek specified evidence that was deemed pertinent; hence, applicable in the hearing. The court’s decision in favor of the prosecutor’s plea confirms that he submitted concrete facts in the build-up to his case (Justia, 1974).
Court’s decision
The court chose to grant the prosecutor’s demands. This meant the president would be compelled to make public the contents of the secret recordings in his custody. This is because the mere presence of a presidential decree without the need to maintain the secrecy of top-level communication does not suffice an absolute presidential decree of exemption from legal processes. This was also supported by the legal stipulations that messages from the president were not compromised in case they were used privately in the course of criminal prosecutions.
Majority opinion
When the question was posed to determine whether the president was in order to use ‘executive privilege’ in a bid to evade the subpoena lodged against him, the vote was a resounding no. The justices argued that this license did not cover matters concerning the armed forces, and diplomatic dealings. He; therefore, was required to honor the subpoena and release the tapes, their corresponding blueprints, and all documents that are pertinent to the case (Oyez, 1974).
Significance of the case
This case prompted Congress to investigate and subsequently restructure the powers vested in the presidency. The fact that Nixon and his associates were trained attorneys instigated the restructuring of admission and regulation procedures. The authorities enforced changes, which implied that the profession would retain its autonomy only if practitioners maintain discipline.
The ruling
I think that the courthouse discharged its responsibility competently. In other nations, the executive would have suppressed these happenings thus perpetuating impunity. This set a benchmark, which is a splendid example for developing and mature democracies to emulate. In addition, justice was served to the democrats who were targeted in the attack. Most importantly, a sitting president paid the price for his misdeeds, setting an exemplary precedent for his successor and general posterity.
References
Justia. (1974). Certiorari before judgment to the United States court of appeals for the district of Columbia circuit. Web.
The Washington Post. (2010). The Government Acts. The Washington Post.
Oyez. (1974). United States v. Nixon. Web.