U.S. VS. NIXON - Futurama Madhouse

advertisement
U.S. VS. NIXON
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL
JULY 24 1974
Richard Nixon
• Born January 9th,
1913
• Died April 22nd, 1994
• Was the 37th
president of the
United States
• Served two terms,
starting in 1974 and
ending during his
second due to
resignation.
The Watergate
• The Watergate was a
headquarters for the
democratic party.
• Nixon had a special group of
people known to him as the
“Plumbers.”
• Their job was to put
eavesdropping devices in
certain rooms so that they
could listen in on
conversations.
People Involved
 Richard Nixon
 James W. Mcord
 Bernard Baker
 Virgilio Gonzalez
 Eugino Martinez
 Frank Sturgis
How They Got Caught
• One of the security guards at
the Watergate noticed that a
door to one of the meeting
rooms had been completely
removed because the
“Plumbers” had failed to pick
the lock. The security guard
called for back up and caught
the plumbers talking into a
radio to an unknown person.
They were all wearing
surgical gloves and had
eavesdropping equipment
and other electronic devices
on their person.
Executive Privilege
• When Richard Nixon
was tried for the
Watergate Scandal, he
tried to use executive
privilege to keep from
giving the courts tapes
and audio recordings.
• EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
MEANS THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN REFUSE TO
RELEASE INFORMATION
THAT WOULD THREATEN
NATIONAL SECURITY.
Arguments for the United States


The Presidents power to
claim executive privilege
may not be invoked to
deny the courts access to
evidence needed in a
criminal proceeding.
This dispute can be
properly heard in the
federal courts.
Arguments for Nixon


The constitutional
scheme of separation of
powers grants the
president the privilege
of withholding
information from the
other branches of
government.
This power is absolute
and it is vital where
high-level
communications are
involved.
 COURT WAS TO
DECIDE
WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT
COULD USE
EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE TO
WITH-HOLD
TAPES AND
DOCUMENTS
INVLOVING THE
WATERGATE.

IN 1974, THE
SUPREME COURT
RULED THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED
STATES COULD
NOT USE
EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE TO
HOLD BACK
EVIDENCE NEEDED
IN A CRIMINAL
TRIAL
Download