This week's topic concerns an important event in American political history which I fear many of us do not remember (or were not alive to witness). The decisions reached in the 1970s impeachment of Richard Nixon scandal set a clear precedent for the limits of Presidential power, and those lessons should not be lost on us as we head into the upcoming impeachment trial.
For those unfamiliar, Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States was impeached in 1973-1974 for his involvement in the Watergate Scandal. Specifically, under three articles:
Now as for the actual events in the Watergate scandal, I would suggest reading more about them — but what you need to know for the context of this post is that the whole thing happened because Nixon tried to sabotage his political rivals in the Democratic Party. More important, however, is to look at why Nixon was ultimately impeached. The articles do not mention anything specific to the break-in at Watergate, but rather they center around Nixon's attempts to derail the investigation into the crime. This is the reason I chose to write about this topic. In the case of Nixon, it took a decision by the Supreme Court to force him to properly comply with Congress's subpoenas, after which Nixon promptly (as in a few days later) resigned from the Presidency.
The newspaper articles below dig deeper into Nixon's distraction of Congress, as well as the implications of the Supreme Court case that ultimately encouraged Nixon to resign. As you read, and as you follow along with the current impeachment scandal, I encourage you to consider the lesson of that case: that distraction, manipulation, intimidation, and obfuscation are not welcome by an American President. And regardless of your political affiliation, ask yourself: is President Trump really innocent of such behavior?
In this issue
**← View all issues • Suggest a future topic**
The New York Times | July 8, 1974
*CAMBRIDGE, Mass.—The American people must be alerted: By refusing to comply with the subpoenas of the House Judiciary Committee, President Nixon is setting himself above the Constitution. He would nullify the constitutional provision for Presidential accountability that was designed to prevent dictatorial usurpations.
The issue far transcends a confrontation between the President and the House; it is a confrontation with the nation. “All officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest,” said the United States Supreme Court in 1882, “are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it”; “no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.” A people that tolerate such defiance by the President is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
The Presidential claim of constitutional right to withhold information from Congress is labeled “executive privilege.” A limited power of secrecy was given to Congress, not to the President. No word about “executive privilege” or “confidentiality” is to be found either in the Constitution or its history. On the other hand, the Supreme Court recognized that parliamentary inquiry was an established “attribute” of legislative power and held that it was conferred upon Congress by the grant of “legislative power.” No minister challenged the right of Parliament to inquire into executive conduct; no member of the executive branch has ever summoned a pre‐1789 “precedent” for executive refusal to honor legislative subpoena; and so far as my own search of parliamentary record goes, there are none.*
The New York Times | July 25, 1974
*WASHINGTON, July 24 — There is the drama of externals, and there is the drama that arises from the situation. It was the latter that gripped the chamber of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice announced the decision in United States v. Nixon.
For seventeen minutes he calmly expounded what seemed at times like a patient lesson in American history and government. Courts owe the greatest deference to a President, he said; but on the meaning of the Constitution they have the last word, not he. It remains true, as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, that it is “emphatically the province and duty” of the Court “to say what the law is.”
The opinion and its delivery were impressive in part because they were so stripped of any external excitement, so without stridency or provocation or hubris. All was measured, professional, stately. It was the law, offering us once again that reassurance of constitutional order that we require of it in this turbulent country.
In the institutional sense, the Supreme Court performed at its best in this case. It was unanimous. It was clear. It was prompt but not hasty. The opinion carefully touched every necessary legal base—and said nothing about the unnecessary. And the opinion was by Warren E. Burger, whom President Nixon chose to be Chief Justice of the United States.
The decisive result of the case of the President's tapes adds to the feeling that the last act of Richard Nixon's drama is at hand. After the long delay in the impeachment process, there is in the air of Washington this week the sense that it is all coming together. The Republicans in Congress are slipping from the ties of loyalty to Mr. Nixon. And in the White House there is visibly taking hold the shattering realization that this President is going to be impeached.
The decisive result of the case of the President's tapes adds to the feeling that the last act of Richard Nixon's drama is at hand. After the long delay in the impeachment process, there is in the air of Washington this week the sense that it is all coming together. The Republicans in Congress are slipping from the ties of loyalty to Mr. Nixon. And in the White House there is visibly taking hold the shattering realization that this President is going to be impeached.
The Supreme Court decision bears no direct or formal relationship to impeachment. Indeed, the opinion wisely did not mention the word impeach or refer to the process pending on the other side of Capitol Hill. The Justices had made it plain at the argument that they regarded all that as a political question, beyond their authority.
Nevertheless the decision inevitably affects the impeachment proceedings. Psychologically, it must damage the President's case: for the Court showed that other institutions of Government may respect the Presidency without accepting the extreme arguments of a particular incumbent or trembling in awe at his claims.*