Nixon Separation Of Powers Case Study

June of 1972, five men with cameras and bugging equipment were caught and arrested in the Democratic National Committee’s offices in Washington DC. Which happens to be where Democratic Party members make decisions involving political campaigns. (streetlaw.org) The break in was eventually connected to the white house. Nixon had hired men to help him get information on how to be re-elected, but President Nixon denied any connection with the incident. After some time, the presiding judge got a letter from one of the convicted men explaining that there were payoffs for the burglar’s silence from someone of high-ranking inside the White House. In 1973, an investigation began, it soon became clear that members of the Nixon administration were involved in the cover up of the burglary and several other illegal actions. Investigators also found that Nixon had installed a taping system that recorded his conversations with his advisors. He had been discussing the break in over the phone which was recorded on the tapes and prosecutors wanted to hear them. Nixon refused to give out the tapes and claimed they were protected under executive …show more content…
Does the separation of powers allow for this dispute to be settled in the Executive Branch or should it be resolved in the Judicial Branch? ( infoplease.com ) The United States argued that the president cannot claim executive privilege, that Executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to evidence needed in a criminal proceeding, and that this conflict can be properly heard in the Federal Courts. But, President Nixon believed that separation of powers grants the president the privilege of withholding information from the other branches of government and that this dispute should be resolved in the executive branch, not in the Federal