Recognizing that the typical limits on the subpoena power did not prevent Congress from attempting to aggrandize itself at the President's expense, the Chief Justice feared that judicial resolution of such a dispute using only those limits could deter negotiation between the two branches, historically the hallmark of such inquiries, and encourage Congress to seek compliance through the courts.⁴⁰ As a result, the Chief Justice instructed lower courts to perform a careful analysis using [s]everal special considerations that take adequate account of the separation-of-powers principles at stake during a legislative inquiry into the President's records.⁴¹ Specifically, in such a dispute, courts should, among other considerations: (1) carefully assess whether the confrontation can be avoided by relying on other sources to provide Congress the information it needs in light of its legislative objective; (2) insist on a subpoena that is no broader than is reasonably necessary to support Congress's objective; (3) consider the nature of the evidence of Congress's legislative purpose, preferring more detailed and substantial evidence to vague or loosely worded evidence of Congress's purpose; and (4) assess the burdens, such as time and attention, the subpoena imposes on the President.⁴²