RICHARD Nixon VS. The United States

The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches.

Does separation of powers created by the Constitution provide Nixon with an absolute power to withhold information from other branches of government? Does the separation of powers allow for the settlement of this dispute to reside in the executive branch or should it be settled by the judicial branch? Does the claim of executive privilege damage the precedent set by the 5th Amendment, which ensures due process?

IN THE CASE

ARGUEMENTS FOR THE US

• President's power is not absolute
• privilege can not be envoked to deprive the court of evidence

ARUGEMENTS FOR NIXON

• Seperation of power gives the president the power to keep
• Information from other branches of government
• This power is absolute
• It is vital when it comes to matters of national security

OUTCOME

• Court rules without a shadow of doubt he is to surrender the tapes
• No president can keep the court from evidence

AFFECTS OF CASE

• Nixon resigned
• He was to be impeached the next week
• He became the 1st president to resign

THANK YOU