Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.26] Mr. FROEHLICH. It further stated that in the last analysis it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Thus, the Court said, in essence, that the President was absolutely correct in defending his interpretation of the Constitution but that the Supreme Court's decision with respect to claim of executive privilege was dispositive in the last analysis. It then held that although the courts will afford the utmost deference in the Presidential need for confidentiality when the. claim of privilege is based merely on generalized interest in confidentiality the assertion of the privilege must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial, that is, the tapes must be given to the district court for in camera inspection. I The decision of Supreme Court did not say that executive privilege was not a viable doctrine,. On the contrary, it said that certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers, the protection of confidentiality of Presidential communication has similar constitutional underpinnings. It also said the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution Thus, the Supreme Court-, has stated emphatically that executive privilege is a constitutional privilege available to the President. Now, whenever a situation where ere' members of this committee, like Mr. Jaworski, are asserting the right to have certain information because under article I the House shall have the sole power of impeachment, but that clause says nothing about a President being powerless to assert what he understands to be his constitutional responsibility to protect his office. Therefore, at best -we have two great branches of government involved in a stalemate both arguing the Constitution. As the Supreme Court, said it is emphatically the province and duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is. So if the members of this committee believe their position, they should have gone to court and asked the court to say what the law is. The committee has every right to assert its understanding of the Constitution but it is not the final arbitrator. It is not the judge and jury. Our Constitution gives the courts the responsibility to interpret the law and I would remind the committee that the President has,, responded to have judicial subpena served upon him and has recently stated he intends to fully comply with the Supreme Court rulings. So there is a remedy available to test these theories of constitutional authority to get information and that is to use the courts, not to attempt to impeach a President for defending what he believes to be his duty under the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Thornton substitute. I also support the McClory original article, though I think the substitute is an improvement- And the reason it is an improvement is because it makes it even more clear that we are not stating a broad power to obtain Presidential documents in any type of congressional proceeding but we are limiting it to an impeachment proceeding which is what we have before, us". Now, it seems to me that no one can dispute that 'without the power to investigate, the impeachment power is meaningless. It is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers believed that a subject of an impeachment inquiry should be able to withhold relevant evidence from impeachment proceedings. Certain privileges founded in our concept of due process I believe are applicable even in impeachment proceedings, but certainly so-called executive privilege is not one of them. Impeachment is the express exception in the Constitution to the so-called separation of powers doctrine. The very purpose of the impeachment power is to discover and remove those civil officers who committed certain serious offenses against the state. Stonewalling tactics have no legitimate place in procedures which are designed to find the truth as rapidly and as completely as possible. Now, if this were a court case the question of privilege would be one for the judge of the court to decide but here, in the first instance, at the committee is the judge, acting for the full House, and the House thereafter, and if the House votes articles of impeachment, ---- [01.36.04--TAPE OUT]