The President is authorizing warrantless wiretaps of citizens. Sound familiar? It was not President Bush, but instead President Nixon in the early 1970’s. As a student considering politics, I have been interested in important political scandals, including Watergate. On July 25th, 1974, Barbara Jordan delivered a speech to the House Judiciary Committee, in support of proposing articles of impeachment against President Nixon. This stemmed from the unfolding Watergate scandal. It was found that President Nixon was obstructing justice and abusing the office of the President to violate the constitutional rights of citizens, according to James Naughton of the New York Times. This included warrantless wiretaps on citizens, and the burglary of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, which was located in the Watergate hotel, and the office of Dr. Lewis Felding. The consideration of these warrantless wiretaps would eventually lead to the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to John Dean of FindLaw. Some of the nefarious activities of Watergate were even funded by money from Nixon’s reelection campaign.
At the time of the speech, the House Judiciary Committee was investigating whether or not to put forward articles of impeachment. Congresswoman Jordan’s speech focused on the issue that it was imperative to impeach President Nixon, or else impeachment as a whole would be meaningless, and, in her words, “perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.”
While these events happened more than thirty years ago, they are just as relevant today, as impeachment of the President is a part of the political landscape, just as it was then. Barbara Jordan could have been speaking to us as she was speaking to the House Judiciary Committee thirty four years prior.
Directly, Congresswoman Jordan’s speech was for the members of the House Judiciary Committee. However, it was clearly meant for a wider audience. For impeachment to be successful there had to be wide support by American citizens. No doubt, then, the speech was meant for more than just those in attendance at the Committee, but rather all of the American people concerned by the controversy. By the nature of her political position and her stance on the impeachment, it is likely the speech would have been heard by those interested in the proceedings. Her speech stands today as one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century, according to American Rhetoric, and as such is still well known today.
It was important for her speech to be heard by more than just the politicians in the committee. If citizens weren’t given a clearly explained rationale for the impeachment, they might feel that it was only about petty politics. Therefore, it was necessary for her rationale to be heard by those concerned by Watergate.
The primary purpose of Congresswoman Jordan’s speech was to convince the members of the House Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional necessity to put forth the articles of impeachment against President Nixon. In the committee, there was significant debate over what was an impeachable offense per the Constitution, according to the New York Times. Jordan’s speech attempted to clear the waters muddied by political affiliation and divisiveness. If her speech was unsuccessful in convincing the members of the Committee that the Watergate scandal was impeachable, it is possible that the articles of impeachment never would have been proposed.
A secondary purpose for such a strongly worded speech might be more self serving in nature. As with many other politicians, Jordan might have wanted to leave a legacy. Taking a vocal role in pushing for the impeachment of the President is certainly one way to make an impact and be remembered.
However, she also had to be concerned about her image in the present. If her speech to the Committee had been filled with vitriol or blatant contempt for the President or Republicans in general, those who disagreed with impeachment could claim that it was solely politically motivated. This would have hurt her credibility and the credibility of the impeachment proceedings. She was therefore constrained by the necessity of keeping a balanced view of the arguments. She also had to make sure her speech was factually correct, or else the inaccuracies could be held against the speech, and in the future, some might doubt the validity of impeaching the President.
In conclusion, despite President Nixon’s continued obstruction of justice, the impeachment proceedings continued. Barbara Jordan’s speech was paramount in convincing the members of the House Judiciary Committee that impeachment was necessary, and as such, shows that not even the President can escape the law if there are those willing to defend it. However, on August 9th, 1974, Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.