14. Constitutional Question: Does the separation of powers provide the President with an absolute power to withhold information from the other branches? Background Information: After the Watergate Scandal, a man by the name of Leon Jaworski who was in charge of conducting the investigation obtained a subpoena which ordered Nixon to give up tapes and papers related to the meetings. Nixon asserted that he had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications and only released some of them which were edited. He was finally asked by the Supreme Court to release them in its entirety. Opinion: The Court ruled that President Nixon had to release the tapes. Chief Justice Burger said that an absolute and unqualified privilege would be in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions. The Court also said that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs but gave preference to the demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. 15. Constitutional Question Under the 1st Amendment, article 2, section 2 clause 2, did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violate the freedom of speech and association clauses? Background Information: After the Watergate Scandal, Congress tried to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. The Federal Election Commission and the law that came with it did just that by setting limits on the amount of money that an individual could contribute to in a single campaign and requiring reporting of contributions above a certain amount. The controversy behind the law led to a court case... ... middle of paper ... ...ourt reasoned that because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on the basis of race. The Court also said that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are also considered alongside race. Works Cited 1. Reuters, Thomson. company.findlaw.com. Findlaw, 2011. Web. 12 Sep 2011. . 2. "http://www.lawnix.com/cases/." http://www.lawnix.com/. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sep 2011. 3. "http://www.oyez.org/cases." http://www.oyez.org/. N.p., 2005-2011. Web. 12 Sep 2011. 4. http://www.about.com/. The New York TImes Compay, 2011. Web. 12 Sep 2011. 5. http://www.infoplease.com/. Pearson Education, 2000-2011. Web. 12 Sep 2011. 6. "http://www.law.cornell.edu/." http://www.law.cornell.edu/. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Sep 2011.
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
When Nixon was inaugurated, he took a sworn oath to protect the people and the country. He lied to his people. He states, “The major problem on the Watergate is simply to clean the thing up by having whoever was responsible admit what happened. Certainly I am satisfied that nobody in the White House had any knowledge or approved any such activity.” (Memoirs 646).
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
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
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.
Our Constitution establishes three branches of government and defines their very existence. The reason for the three branches is to separate the powers. The phrase “separation of powers” isn’t in the constitution, but it best explains the intention of the Constitution. It is essential that the assignment of lawmaking, enforcing and interpreting be spread out among the separated powers to ensure that all power doesn’t fall into the lap of one group, or even a power-hungry individual. The powers of which I’m speaking that were intentionally separated by way of the Constitution are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally, the Judicial Branch.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
The judicial branch will continue to play a vital role in the ‘struggle’ for power in foreign affairs and the use of armed forces. We will surely see public debate and congressional involvement over a recent decision by President Obama that authorized the ‘targeted killing’ of a US citizen abroad without due process under the pretext combating terrorism.
During Ellsberg’s trial, Nixon knew he had the case won. But, somebody leaked the Watergate information to the judge. Since it is also illegal to go through private property, the case was dismissed. Ellsberg was set free. In 2002, he published a book called Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
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
Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.
Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
One of the biggest threats to a thriving country is a tyrannical government. To prevent this, the Founders declared that the power of the government must be separated. This principle, the Separation of Powers, states that, to prevent tyranny, one governmental branch cannot have supremacy over the country. The power must be divided among three branches. These are the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The Separation of Powers is of equal importance now as when the Constitution was written because it prevents tyranny.