The Us Vs Nixon Case Study

When the case finally made it to the Supreme Court, five justices voted in favor of Hayes, who was the district attorney. Four of the justices agreed that Branzburg had no right to confidentiality and should have given the court the identities they had requested. One of the Supreme Court justices handed down a dissenting opinion. The opinion handed down stated that Branzburg’s rights should have been protected unless the court could prove three things: First they had to prove probable cause that Branzburg had information to a crime that the Grand Jury was investigating. Secondly the court had to prove that there was no other alternative to obtaining the desired information on the two individuals identities except from Branzburg himself. Finally the court had to prove that there was strong desire for the government to

Article II gives the president numerous powers and responsibilities. Millard Fillmore wasn’t the brightest crayon in the box nor is he a well know president to most people. Fillmore was the 13th president of the United States. Before, he was a man like any other person until Zachary Taylor died, forcing him to assume the role of president. It was that one moment that changed Fillmore’s life for the next four years.

The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.

This sympathetic attitude toward the clause should not lead us to intrude our ideas of propriety into the conduct of congressional hearings. The rule laid down by the Court today merely adds another means for interference and delay in investigations and trials, without adding to the protection of the constitutional right of freedom from self-incrimination.

Throughout American history, after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, the validity of executive privilege has been questioned in federal courts and among legal scholars on countless occasions. According to Merriam-Webster, executive privilege entails, “exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, executive privilege is the notion that the President is exempt from having to give evidence or disclose information to congressional hearings or to judicial inquiries. Executive privilege also typically includes immunity from legal disputes involving the presidency. Although not officially referred to as “executive privilege” until Eisenhower’s presidency, the first argument of executive privilege or immunity took place during George Washington’s presidency (The Constitution and Executive Privilege). Claiming executive privilege has been a common occurrence throughout all U.S. presidencies and continuing with President Obama. Those who argue against the legitimacy of executive privilege use the reasoning that it is not constitutional because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and interrupts the separation of powers. On the other hand, many legal scholars assert that executive privilege is necessary for

In the past, the power of executive privilege has been used by Presidents to conceal information that has to do with foreign affairs and negotiations, military, national security issues as well as deliberations and policy making that is done between the President and his top aides. This power is only used when Congress asks the President or one of his top aides to produce all of the information pertaining to an event or situation. If the President then feels that parts of this information needs to be kept secret to protect the best interest of the public, or the other issues listed previously, then he will use executive privilege in order

Executive Privilege: The executive privilege power allows the President and other high-level officers, to keep information from Congress, and the courts. This power is not enlisted in the United States Constitution. The presidents and the rest of their staff may have needs for the secrecy, and it should be kept private for that matter. This strikes questions raised on the president being able to hold

Identify and describe the powers granted to the US President granted by Article II of the US Constitution.

In the issue of the President of the United States issuing an order to the Attorney General, there are a few issues on a political level, as well as those dealing with constitutional levels. As the leader of the executive branch, the President is tasked with executing the laws enacted by Congress. This notion was enshrined in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Putting this into the complex political nature of the U.S. political system means the President also has informally—although not enshrined in the Constitution— been given powers. These would include being the head of the President’s respective party, using the Presidential position as a pulpit for their views, and being the head of the vast executive wing (the Constitution does not address the issues of an institution that has grown to such a massive size.). It is these informal and formal powers that restrain and empower the President when dealing with other branches of government.

The clause that President Trump supposedly violated is located in Article One, Section Nine, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution.

“I do not do this for political purposes,” he continued. “I do it because, Mr Speaker, there is a belief in this country that no one is above the law. And that includes the president of the United States of America. Mr Speaker, our democracy is at risk.”

Power is what differentiate world leaders like President Barack Obama or the Pope from a regular citizen. The president of the United States of America are one of the most respected and powerful person in the world. They have a lot of responsibilities to attend to that they believe will make an impact to the people of the United States. In order to push laws through with what they believe in, the president uses the executive order. An executive order is given to the president and the executive branch through Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. An executive order are orders, that are treated like the law, to executive branches and agencies. (Greensberg, 393) In this essay, I will be talking about the limits of the executive order, how they affect some ethnic groups and why we use it.

Executive Privilege gives the President of the United States and his staff in the executive office the right to withhold information from the judicial branch of Government; it also allows the president and his advisors the power to keep information from Congress and the public. Presidential power has always been an extremely controversial matter because it is never mentioned in the United States Constitution as a right; but the process to actually exercise the use of executive privilege and of the official choices leading to make it clear that this in fact is a genuine presidential power as long as it is used correctly has been challenging. The President and his staff need to have plans and events that need to be kept in private, but the question of whether or not withholding this important information from Congress, courts and the public is beneficial to the country as a whole. Generally there are four areas that executive privilege is based on: ongoing law enforcement investigations, presidential communications, national security, foreign affairs and or military affairs and finally thought through process. Presidents have always said that the implied principle of executive privilege is mandated through the separation of powers. Presidents also have said that in order to do their jobs correctly and to get the advice needed from all their advisors; their advisors are not willing to give advice if their advice can be used against them in anyway. The term executive

In pursuit of this, Kalfala, being a private legal practitioner, assigned Justice Cowan to evaluate section 40 of the 1991 Constitution; contributing that the committee should provide clear extensions and boundaries within which presidential authority may be used, thus limiting future abuses of presidential power. Michael C. Burgess hold a very strong view in the situation, stating that Article I and Article II of the U.S. Constitution entrusts all legislative powers to Congress and assigns the power of legislative execution to the President. He goes on to further describe how Barack Obama chooses to disregard this fact repetitively in how "The Executive Branch has made a habit of bypassing the legislative process, acting far beyond its delineated authorities. The President continues to promote his big government agenda--violating Congress' constitutional oversight of checks and balances… President Obama must withdraw and allow the Legislative Branch to do the job that the American people elected it to do”

The main reasons that this is an controversial case is because the public wants to know about the activities of Congress and the President in a publicized way. So that they can have complete transparency But that would mean, among other things, the rejection of all forms of confidentiality in the Court’s operations. Confidentiality of the court and all the individuals engaged with the court system. As the judges, lawyers, juries, witnesses and lastly the convicted. Which can go against certain legal rights that every individual has the right to have. “Its guarantee will be met as long as the court is open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum, and