Is submitted. You have been listen to the oral arguments from july 8th, 1974, the case, the United States versus nixon. Joining us from new york is evan davis who was part of the House Judiciary Committee impeachment staff in one of the leaders in the impeachment and water gate cover up task force. Thanks very much for being with us. Good to be here. As you look back at the oral arguments and the unanimous decision written by the chief justice, what was the significance of that . Well, as a lawyer, i have owe say that this is one of the top ten decisions the Supreme Court of the United States has ever made. Its right up there with marberry versus madison. Indeed it sites it. Its a very fundamental decision. Its Principal Holding is that no man, person, is a bbove the law. Thats the basic conclusion of the case of the just to very quickly go over the four issues i mentioned earlier. The court held that it did have jurisdiction. The court held that this was a totally proper dispute for t
Ive learned quite a lot. I, too, w like to associate as myself with the remarks of our chair about how enraged i think we all are when we hear some of the things that weve heard today. I think that just leads us all want to go forth and make sure we do everything we can to cooperate with you to minimize these issues that are out there, if not eliminate them entirely, and i do agree, too, that the role of the internet no doubt has been really important in magnifying the problem multiplying the problem perhaps in many instances, too, so thanks for being here today and i want to thank the chair again for having this hearing. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ryan, thank you again for being here. We really appreciate your leadership. Appreciate your commitment to this country and our kids. We join you in that effort, and we look forward to continuing our relationship in that dialogue you spoke of and doing everything we can so that families can build better lives for themselves. With that, se
Is submitted. You have been listen to the oral arguments from july 8th, 1974, the case, the United States versus nixon. Joining us from new york is evan davis who was part of the House Judiciary Committee impeachment staff in one of the leaders in the impeachment and water gate cover up task force. Thanks very much for being with us. Good to be here. As you look back at the oral arguments and the unanimous decision written by the chief justice, what was the significance of that . Well, as a lawyer, i have owe say that this is one of the top ten decisions the Supreme Court of the United States has ever made. Its right up there with marberry versus madison. Indeed it sites it. Its a very fundamental decision. Its Principal Holding is that no man, person, is a bbove the law. Thats the basic conclusion of the case of the just to very quickly go over the four issues i mentioned earlier. The court held that it did have jurisdiction. The court held that this was a totally proper dispute for t
That was to be my point, sir, and i will make it right now. The notion that because there is concurrently under way an impeachment inquiry before the house of representatives, that somehow makes this a nonjusticiable political notion. It is not supported by sound constitutional law or by any of the decisions of this court, and indeed, i would submit that to the extent the court has discretion in the matter, and although this court has now been given discretionary certiary power, District Courts have no such option, it would not be a wise discretion for this court to stay. This is not a request between two jurisdictional committees over who has discretion over a bill. Its not even a dispute between a president and a cabinet officer over what proper executive policy ought to be. This is a criminal proceeding, a federal criminal case against six defendants. A subpoena has been issued to obtain evidence for use at the trial, which is scheduled to begin on september 9. The court cannot esca
Programs that you otherwise actually support. In fact, those are more drastic remedies, and frankly they wont remedy the problem. They wont force the executive to faithfully execute the laws. If all you want is congress is for the executive to faithfully execute your laws, peaceful judicial resolution may be the most tailored and appropriate response. So all of this reveals a glaring deficiency in those who criticize the committees draft resolution. States can sue to preserve their power. The executive branch it sue to preserve its power but somehow magically congress cant. I guess under this logic congress is some sort of institutional orphan thats uniquely incapable of being injured enough to establish standing to sue. The absurdity of that position is belied by extensive case law that recognizes that subdivisions of congress in the form of committees have standing to assert institutional injury caused by the executive branch. These cases, most of which have been litigated here in th