Equal-Law System in United States v. Nixon

1301 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Equality court cases

United States of America is a country that has justice and a large legal system. People, who are the citizens of the U.S., are not able to be above the law no matter how successful they are. The Preamble states that the government is to “ secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (U.S. Constitution 1) The Preamble represents Americans' desire to have a perfect union for themselves under the control of the law. Unfortunately, there are some people that do not conform to the law. For example, in 1972, President Nixon had been involved in the Watergate Scandal. This case is known as United States v. Nixon. President Nixon resigned his job after the Supreme Court made their judgment. This case proves that the equality of American judicial system is fair for everyone. The case of United States v. Nixon is so important because it proves that every U.S. citizens is equal before the law, and nobody is above the law, including the U.S. president. Since the case of Marbury v. Madison was over, the U.S. Supreme Court begins to own a new power called “Judicial Review,” which could help the Supreme court to make sure that the actions or decisions of executive branch and Congress are constitutional. In the case of United States v. Nixon, President Nixon was not supposed to eavesdrop the adversary’s stratagems of the president’s election, so he was charged by the Supreme Court. The chief justice was Burger, and he reaffirmed that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Supreme Court is the superior symbol of the U.S. law, so it has duties to protect the justice t... ... middle of paper ... ...vident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”(Declaration of Independence). As far as American people know, the Supreme Court is the representative of the law justice, upheld principle that all men are equal before the law in the case of United States v. Nixon. Nowadays, this case has already been a precedent to show that maybe everyone is not created equal, but people made the law to protect them to be equal. In addition, everyone cannot rely on the position of society standard or any exploits for avoiding the punishment of the law if they violate the law, including the president. So, United States v. Nixon is so important because it demonstrates that nobody or nothing will not be treated differently before the law, and the law is sacred that nobody could be above it, including the U.S president.

Show More
Related

  • John Marshall's Effect on the American Judicial System

    1672 Words  | 4 Pages

    The judicial power, also known back then as The Weakest Branch, was created to achieve an effective collaboration of the powers, what we call now Check and Balances. One of the framers of the Judicial Power was John Marshall. Chief Justice John Marshall is one of the main figures in the history of the US Judicial System. He was the youngest Chief Justices in the history of the United States and was the developer of the most important power of the Supreme Court, The Judicial Review.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton's "Federalist no. 78"

    1100 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review of the Warren Court

    1556 Words  | 4 Pages

    When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.

    Read More

  • Power Of Judicial Review: Miranda V. Arizona

    1014 Words  | 3 Pages

    The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Federal Court Judges

    1751 Words  | 4 Pages

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (The Constitution Article I Section 3). Impeachment is something that doesn’t happen very often, but when it does it is taken very seriously. Impeachment means that basically someone is not doing their job correctly and they have done something to abuse the power and therefore can no longer hold that position anymore. This is one way of removing someone from a position or office without a jury or a debate about it. Stating within the constitution that, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;…” (The Constitution Article III Section 2). This allows the verdict to not be questioned and overthrown. Impeachment is only necessary when a judge does not follow the oath that they have taken and that the judge has made a

    Read More

  • Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal

    2185 Words  | 5 Pages

    Some historians believe that this changed the course of history, and that we can never truly trust the government again. While others believe that Nixon didn’t make the right decisions, this should not change the way the people look at our government. The government and the people need to maintain strong trust. The opposing argument believes that Richard Nixon made a turning point in history that allowed the people to turn against the government. Nobody can trust a government where the president himself does something against the law.

    Read More

  • The Supreme Court Case: United States V. Nixon

    1504 Words  | 4 Pages

    Presidential power has increased all the time. Compared to the first U.S. president George Washington, the modern presidency has more power and departments (Patterson, 2014). The expansion of presidential power increases the ability of the Executive branch to regulate and protect our society. On the other hand, the president may abuse his presidential power. Like in this case, the President Nixon monitored his staff’s conversation at the Oval Office, and he let some people to set up the recording device in the Watergate complex (“teachingamericanhistory.org”, n.d.). In my opinion, the president Nixon abused his presidential power to set up these recording devices. Even though he had the excuse that the conversations he recorded may contain the national security issue, the method that he get information was not appropriate. He cannot just record everything without other people’s permission to achieve his goal. These recording conversations might have other people’s privacy. Even though the U.S. constitution does not state the word privacy, it can be derived from the Bill of Rights (Patterson, 2014). The people’s privacy is protected now, and any other person cannot invade their privacy without permission. Therefore, the president Nixon violates other people’s privacy, which was against the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the U.S., the President Nixon had to follow it (Patterson, 2014). Thus, when the presidential power conflicts with the Constitution, anyone in Executive branch should obey the

    Read More

  • Marbury v. Madison: Analyzing the Implications of Judicial Review

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the

    Read More

  • United States v. Nixon

    367 Words  | 1 Pages

    Nixon only released some of the tapes required in the subpoena and asserted that he was immune from this subpoena filing a motion to quash it based on executive privilege. He said because it demands "confidential conversations between a President and his close advisors that would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce. 4. The District Court rejected Nixon's motion saying that the judiciary, not the President, was the final arbiter of a claim of executive privilege. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the President.

    Read More

  • Richard Nixon Impeachment

    640 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...mbodia was intentionally carried out without the consent of Congress, which also violated the articles outlined in the United States Constitution. The charged that he faced for that was Unlawful Refusal to Contempt with Congress. After all, having kept the bombing of Cambodia a secret was not a success for President Nixon, carrying out the plan wasn’t successful either. It did not stop Communism from spreading. The media would find out about the bombing and the only person to blame for all of the consequences would be the corrupted President Nixon. His own poor egotistical actions led to his downfalls including the downfall of the great Watergate Scandal. He had put this burden upon himself because he carried out actions so freely without having the issue discussed with the Congress and taking advantage of the power of the presidency and going beyond the boundary.

    Read More

  • Presidential Immunity: Cases In The Supreme Court

    1138 Words  | 3 Pages

    The case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald was brought before the court as a suit against the president for allegedly getting rid of a Federal employee for political reasons and not structural reasons as he claimed. The employee, Ernest Fitzgerald, was a civilian management analyst for the U.

    Read More

  • The Watergate Scandal

    1649 Words  | 4 Pages

    Despite the national attention the Watergate scandal had gained President Nixon, he won the second term presidency. The major problem for Nixon would come later. The investigations of the Watergate scandal lead to the discovery of other criminal acts by officials including Nixon. During the investigation many things begin to surface. It was discovered that documents had been destroyed that may have made a link between Nixon and the Watergate scandal. These documents may have shown that he had some acknowledgement in what had happened. There was evidence that people involved in the Nixon campaign had been wire tapping phones illegally for a long time according to “dummies.com”. The greatest issue would come to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings. During testimonies it came to light that every conversation was recorded in the Oval office according to “study.com”. It was demanded that these tapes be reviewed to learn how much involvement President Nixon had in the Watergate burglary. The President felt that he had the right to withhold these tapes through what he referred to as executive privilege. This means that if it is the best interest of the public the president has the right to keep information from the

    Read More

  • Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government

    2619 Words  | 6 Pages

    Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.

    Read More

  • Essay On Executive Privilege

    2444 Words  | 5 Pages

    Executive privilege has been around since Washington’s first term in office as the first official president of the United States. During Washington’s presidency he set the stage for the use of executive privilege that will evolve over time into something far greater than its initial purpose. Clinton and Nixon utilized executive privilege in a greater sense than Washington, and later Jefferson. They used executive privilege to cover up their wrongdoings and illegal activities. The outcome of the Nixon trial led to the official acknowledgment of executive privilege as a power allotted to the president and other executive officials, but it also noted that the power of executive privilege does not override the need of key information in a criminal investigation.

    Read More

More about Equal-Law System in United States v. Nixon

Open Document