Supreme Court Case

Good Essays
The President’s counsel urged two grounds. The first ground was for confidentiality of the information transmitted between the high-ranking officials and the people that advise and assist them. The second ground was that the claim rests on the doctrine of separation of powers and that protects the president” from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution” (Nixon at 238). Nevertheless, the desire for confidently between high-ranking officials and the doctrine of separation of powers “can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. However, when the general public is interested in those conversations different values arises” (Nixon at 238). The reason why is …show more content…
The United States has elected an adversary system, in which its one party versus another party. Therefore, “the adversary system of the criminal system allows the parties to to contest all issues. The integrity of the judicial system and public confidence depends on the ability of the parties to tell all the relevant facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence” (Nixon at 238). In this case the President challenged a subpoena but because the materials were to be used in a criminal case, due process prevailed. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court was cautious in formulating their opinion because they did not want to answer the political question raised between Congress and the Executive Branch, which the Supreme Court is against …show more content…
Purposivists look at, congressional records, legislative and statutory history and social conditions in making their decisions on the issue discussed. The reasoning being that I would want to look at case history and social conditions, to see the precedent of previous court decisions on cases that involved executive privilege. When Nixon filed his motion to dismiss the subpoena, he did not claim that the information would put in danger general public. In accordance with all that research, I would have decided that Nixon needed to abdicate the tapes because the due process of a citizen and the right of a fair and speedy trial triumphs executive privilege. The doctrine of separation of powers does allow each branch to conduct its business without being interfered by the other branches but the other branches do have the authority to check each others actions when it violates the Constitution or the duty of a

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    The appellants also argued that the judge did not allow the defense counsel to speak about jury nullification to the jury as well. Judge Leventhal encouraged individuals to make their own decisions about which laws to obey. In doing so this might cause a disarray in the American government and put everything off balance (United States v. Dougherty 25). He veered towards having a more stable and strong system to prevent the danger of jury nullification if the judges would notify every juror of this power. However, Judge Bazelon argues with his dissenting opinion that the jury should have the right to know about this specific power.…

    • 871 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that Parliament should not pass legislation that would result in the unequal treatment of particular groups or individuals. If Parliament does pass any such laws, the judiciary has the power to declare them unlawful if the law is taken to judicial review, as it almost certainly would be if the law were genuinely violating the rule of…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rumsfeld, joined by Justice Stevens. This case involved the question of demands national security and the rights to personal liberties of United States citizens. The first approach that Scalia took in his dissent was to assert that it has been the constitutional tradition of our country, even when it came to citizens accused of waging war against the country, to prosecute him federal court for treason or another crime. This exemplifies the formalist approach because it looks to previous interpretations of the constitution and attempts to sway the court to follow the constitution strictly despite the fact that it is a different case with different circumstances. Scalia goes on to protest that the system of separation of powers that we have abided by in the past has protected us from indefinite imprisonment by the President, and to go against that would stop us from this protection.…

    • 2172 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    III" and he goes on to note that that the framers stressed the separateness of the branches, as opposed to their independence. The majority in this case is primarily concerned that allowing the President to possess an unqualified ability to classify information would place him outside of the rule of law, and therefore outside the scope of either Congress or the court. Such a pernicious privilege would necessarily contravene the balance of power in the federal government, creating an Executive that could not be…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Red Scare

    • 882 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Dennis versus the United States exemplifies this assertion. Dennis versus U.S. is a case in which the constitutionality of the Smith Act was upheld. President Truman felt it necessary to prove his tough demeanor by approving the prosecution of a group of high status Communist Party officials. Truman did this on the basis of the Smith Act. (fn, pg 774).…

    • 882 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Supreme Court System

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages

    They also believe that unelected judges should not strike down on laws/policies that were created by an elected legislature. Politicians who oppose judicial activism also believe that courts should only be resolving internal conflicts within the branches and should only use judicial restraint when determining if a law is unconstitutional. (Jones 2016) However, these arguments against judicial activism are iniquitous. The function of the courts is to promote a democracy and ensure that the rights of citizens are not violated. If a law that a legislature has created violates a citizen’s individual liberty, judiciaries should be able to dismantle this…

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They were given this responsibility by Parliament and it is an important role they must fulfil. The judiciary tend to use deference on national security matters because they are not experts on the issue. However, deference might not be the correct decision in all cases because most cases are on matters of procedure, rather than expertise; in those cases the courts should not refuse to decide the cases on the basis that they are security decisions and outside their expertise . The fact the government and Parliament are best placed to assess risk for national security can be questioned since they were wrong on the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion . Their decision making can always be questioned by the fact that Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot in the head on the assumption that he was a suicide bomber when he was not .…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Laudan’s stronger argument is that there are epistemological reasons to rid the law of “Lobotomized Jurors” as he calls the rule. He believes that this practice primarily protects guilty defendants and that we should revert our practices to pre-Griffin trial times where jurors could consider the defendant’s choice to testify or not, and that there were also clear instructions given by judges to make sure that jurors would give this piece of evidence the weight that it deserves, and no more. Laudan thinks that this would decrease false acquittals in the system, and I agree with that statement. In fact, I also agree with the following statement Laudan also made, “We are comparing a current policy (allowing Lobotomized Jurors), that is bound to produce many erroneous…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If citizens break the law, then the appropriate punishment applies according to the statutes; however, if the government breaks the law, then sanctions applies to uphold the integrity of the law. In addition to his stance on the law, he feels the government is not to overstep their boundaries by harming the civil liberties of Americans. Brandeis believes in the Bill of Rights and protecting the original intent of that document. That is why Brandeis dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States and his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California showed his legal and judicial creativity because he constructed arguments to reinforce the protection of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Brandeis dissent of Olmstead implanted the seed that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of people.…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    When justices on the bench of the United States Supreme Court make their respective decisions on a case, they are faced with two outcomes. The first is that they can decide to overturn a decision from a lower court, deem a federal law unconstitutional, or nullify other federal or state statute. When the Supreme Court changes previous statute or overturns a previous court decision, it is judicial activism. But when the Supreme Court decides to uphold precedent, upholding laws passed by Congress or state legislatures, or strictly adhering to the original text of the Constitution, it is judicial restraint. Although the aforementioned terms do not have any overlap in their definitions, it can often be seen that both of these judicial practices can be implemented in a single Supreme Court ruling.…

    • 1309 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays