Watergate & the Constitution

1. It is August 9, 1974. Nixon has just resigned as president. You are a lawyer who has been asked to write a well-developed argument as to whether or not Nixon should be indicted and prosecuted as a civilian for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal. What is your opinion? Be sure to cite evidence from the two-page memorandum and appropriate clauses from the U.S. Constitution (over).

In order to maintain a fair democracy, Nixon must be indicted and prosecuted as a civilian for his crimes. As is shown in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, presidents who are impeached are able to be indicted; it should be no different for a president who resigns. Once he resigned, he became a citizen of the U.S., just like any other citizen not holding public office; he relinquished his presidential privilege, and therefore deserves no special treatment. Nixon pledged to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he took his presidential oath (Article II, section 1, clause 8); rather than doing this, he let the entire nation down. He must be tried for these crimes - it matters not that he was president in the past, but only that he is president no longer.

2. It is September 8, 1974. Nixon has just been pardoned by President Gerald Ford. You are a lawyer who has been asked to write a well-developed argument as to whether or not Nixon should have been pardoned for any crimes committed while he was president. What is your opinion? Be sure to cite evidence from the two-page memorandum, appropriate clauses from the U.S. Constitution (over), and Ford’s pardon and explanation.

Nixon should absolutely not have been pardoned by President Ford. By doing so, Ford taught the nation that being holding power at one point in life made one untouchable; "normal" citizens could be tried and punished, but because he was an ex-president, Nixon was somehow above the rule of the law. Technically, according to Article II, section 2, clause 1, Ford had every right to pardon Nixon; however, I maintain that it spread the wrong message to the nation. Ford states many times, both in his official pardon and in his explanation, that he felt Nixon had suffered enough by resigning from he position of president. This, however, is not truly a punishment for a crime; rather, it is a source of embarrassment that Nixon brought on himself. After all the crimes that Nixon committed or allowed to commit, he should not have been pardoned; he should have been indicted just as any other citizen would have been.

3. Do you think Richard Nixon’s acceptance of Ford’s pardon was an admission of guilt? Explain.

Yes, I do believe that Nixon's acceptance of Ford's pardon was an admission of guilt. Nixon could, very conceivably, have ignored the pardon, under the grounds that he was not guilty, and therefore did not need to be pardoned for a crime he did not commit. By accepting the pardon, Nixon was admitting that he had done something that needed to be pardoned. While it was a flat out confession, it was the closest thing to a confession that Nixon had given over the course of the entire scandal.

United States v. Nixon

The Cover-up

1. Regardless of the outcome, should the President of the United States have a right to privacy in regards to the Oval Office tapes? Explain.

The President should not have the right to privacy in regards to Oval Office tapes. Clearly, the President does get more say than other citizens in what is government business and what is not - however, Presidential privilege should only be allowed to go so far. The President should not have to release tapes on a regular basis - or on the whim of the public of Congress - but if there is solid evidence that the President or his administration is involved in criminal activity, and evidence that the Oval Office tapes might be able to shed some light on the case, the tapes should absolutely not be private. In the case of Nixon, it was Alexander Butterfield's testimony (his saying "I was hoping you wouldn't ask that!" in response to Congress asking if there were Oval Office tapes) that led to the tapes needing to be investigated. In a case such as that, when there is suspected criminal activity with a logical basing, the tapes need to be made public. Not even the President can be entirely above the law.

2. Was President Nixon justified when he fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox? Explain.

Nixon was in no way justified in firing SP Cox. It appears - from the timing of the incident - that the only reason Nixon fired Cox was because Cox was closing in on making Nixon surrender the tapes. This is unjust; the president should not be able to fire someone simply because they are getting too close to uncovering unsavory information about said president. This was another clear example of Nixon's abuse of power; in order to keep himself looking innocent, he was ready and willing to fire anyone who got in his way.

3. Was Nixon creating a Constitutional crisis by refusing to hand-over the tapes? Explain.

Yes, he was. By refusing to hand over the tapes, Nixon raised the question of just how far presidential privilege goes. Up until the point of Watergate, presidential privilege had just been a general idea; once Watergate occurred, it was an issue that needed to be clearly decided. By refusing to hand over the tapes, and claiming that he was "not a crook", Nixon showed the public just how easy it would be for a president to be doing illegal activities and hide it from the public. This was, of course, a clear concern; the constitution gave much power to the president, yes, but clearly, exactly how far that power extended desperately needed to be defined.

Closure

4. Why do you think the American public was so outraged by Watergate?
The American public was outraged because something like this had never occurred on such a large scale before. Watergate was the first "-gate" - the first real presidential scandal. The public was shocked because they felt betrayed; they had poured their trust into Nixon and his administration by giving them their votes, and he simply abused his power and ignored what the public wanted him to do. At first, Nixon had seemed like such a saving grace with the situation in Vietnam; this only made the country feel all the more let down by Watergate.

5. Do you think President Nixon should have resigned? Explain.

Yes, Nixon should have resigned. He was behaving absolutely shamefully - from the beginning (letting the break in of the Democratic offices be organized in the first place) to the end (denying that he and his administration had any part in the scandal even after resigning). When he was sworn in, Nixon was making a promise to lead the country in an appropriate and honest manner; by abusing his power so blatantly, Nixon was clearly breaking oath, and therefore was unfit to maintain the presidency.

6. Do you think President Nixon should have been prosecuted? Explain.

Yes, he should have been prosecuted. Were he not prosecuted, it would have said to the country that the President was in such high standing that he was above the law. This was the issue with watergate in the first place - Nixon and his higher-ups felt that they were above the standing of the law. If Nixon had not been prosecuted, this would have reinforced that theory; it would have made him akin to a monarch, unable to be punished for any wrongdoing. In a democracy, the president should be treated just as any other citizen - because each and every citizen should be treated equally, no matter what official standing of office they do or do not hold.

Watergate: Nixon's Downfall

1. How were the "plumbers" connected to President Nixon?

The Plumbers, named thus because they were hired to "plug up" the leaking of information about the break-in to the public. The Plumbers were made up of many government officials, including E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Libby. Hunt was a former CIA member and then later worked under Nixon in the White House; Libby was a key member of the CRP and had worked for the Nixon administration for several years.

2. Who was the judge? Why did he hand out maximum sentences?

The judge was John Sirica; from the very beginning, he had been sure that the men who committed the break-in had not acted alone, and for that reason was never doubtful of any proof against Nixon and his men.

3. How were Mitchell and Dean connected to Nixon?
Mitchell was Nixon's former Attorney General; Dean was a presidential counsel.

4. How were Haldeman and Erlichman connected to Nixon?
Haldeman was the White House Chief of Staff; Erlichman was the Chief Domestic Advisor.

5. What did the following men tell the Senate about Nixon?

a. Dean

Dean told the Senate that Nixon had been firmly involved in the cover-up; he specifically mentioned one meeting during which he and the president and several other government higher-ups sat around planning strategies for continuing the cover-up.

b. Butterfield

Butterfield alerted the Senate the fact that Nixon taped all of his presidential meetings and conversations, allegedly to help him write his memoirs.

6. Who was fired or forced to resign in the "massacre"?

Attorney General Richardson resigned after Nixon ordered him to fire Cox, the prosecutor in charge of obtaining Nixon's tapes.

7. Why weren't investigators satisified with the transcripts?

The transcripts had been edited - who knows how much - and were therefore not truly useful. They wanted the unedited tapes, which would tell all.

8. What did the tapes reveal?

The tapes did have a few gaps - including one 18.5 minute one that was blamed on the secretary accidentally deleting it - but one tape, from 6 days after the break in, contained a conversation between Haldeman and Nixon that told the HJC exactly what they needed to hear. The president had both known about the roles that his members of office played in the cover-up, and had agreed to block the FBI's investigation of the break-in.

9. Why did Vice President Spiro Agnew resign?
It was revealed that, during his time as Governor of Maryland, he had accepted bribes from engineering companies.

10. What did the House Judiciary Committee charge President Nixon with?

The HJC charged Nixon with "obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress".

11. How did the Watergate scandal create a constitutional crisis?

Throughout his trials and the scandal, Nixon argued that releasing information would put national security at risk. This excuse, which he cited over and over again, created a constitutional crisis in that yes, it was the President's duty to protect national security at all costs; however, it was eventually ruled that even the President cannot hide evidence involving criminal activity.

Women Fight For Equality

Directions: As you read about the rise of a new women’s movement, take notes to explain how each of the following helped to create or advance the movement.

1. Experiences in the workplace: By the 1960s, 40% of American women worked for wages. However, they were still shut out of certain jobs that were considered "men's work", and were instead stuck doing lower-paying "women's jobs" like clerical work, retail sails, nursing, teaching, social work, and domestic service. Until 1961, when Kennedy created the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. This committee reported 2 years later that women were being paid far less than men, often for the same jobs. Also, women were often passed over for promotions, even if they exceeded men in experience and ability.

2. Experiences in social activism: Even when participating in civil rights movements, women were discriminated against. Men led many of the civil rights organizations, and women were denied proper roles in them.

3. "Consciousness raising": This irony led to many smaller groups to be formed by women, in which their concerns about their treatment in society were discussed. In these "conscious raising" sessions, women banded together and discovered the overlying pattern of sexism that was running rampant in America at the time.

4. Feminism: Feminism was the founding theory behind the women's rights movement. It was the belief that women should have economic, social, and political equality with men.

5. Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Friedan's book, published in the late 50s or early 60s, called attention to a problem secretly sweeping the nation: millions of unsatisfied housewives, secretly wanting more out of life and not knowing how to get it. Friedan's book called attention to this issue, and soon, women began banding together to do something about it.

6. Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on religion, national origin, and gender, and formed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, which handled discrimination claims. Women were excited about this bill, because it dealt with gender, too, and the women's rights movement began picking up even more speed after the passage of this bill. However, the EEOC often did not deal fairly with women's rights issues, and women had to continue trying to find a way to get equality.

7. National Organization for Women (NOW): Created by 28 women, NOW was formed to "pursue women's goals". NOW petitioned for things such as adequate child care facilities so that mothers could join the workforce and become educated. They pressured EEOC to more fairly deal with the gender portion of the Civil Rights Act of '64; this resulted in EEOC declaring it illegal to create jobs for only one sec, and in the creation of guidelines that made it impossible for businesses to refuse to hire women for "men's jobs".

8. Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine: Steinem, an ardent feminist, was a very vocal fighter for women's equality. She helped to found the National Women's Political Caucus, which helped women run for political office. In 1972, she helped to create Ms. magazine, which gave the feminist perspective on everyday issues. The women's rights movement was pushing itself in the public eye more so than ever.

9. Congress: In 1972, Congress passed a bill that banned gender discrimination in "any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance". This resulted in many previously all-boys colleges beginning to accept women. Also, the powers of the EEOC were expanded, and working parents were given a tax-break which went to child care expenses, just as the feminists had been pushing for.

10. Supreme Court: The most famous women's rights Supreme Court case was Roe v. Wade. This case debated whether or not women have the right to have an abortion. The SC ruled that women do have the right to an abortion, but only during the first trimester. Some feminists were pacified, while others continued to fight the issue, thinking the ruling too weak.

11. The Equal rights Amendment would have guaranteed equal rights under the law, regardless of gender. Who opposed this amendment? Why?

Many conservative religious groups and prominent conservative figures, such as Phyllis Schlaffy, worried that this bill would lead to such things as the drafting of women into the army, the end of husband's feeling the need to provide for their family, same-sex marriage, and no more laws protecting housewives. Many anti-feminists, who thought the the women's rights movement was simply full of men and marriage haters, also opposed this amendment.

Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?

Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?

The Americans did not lose purely for military reasons. There were other factors as well.

Write an explanation AND cite a source which shows the importance of the following six factors:

1. US military tactics in Vietnam

The U.S. used a combination of bombing, chemical warfare, and search-and-destroy techniques when fighting the Viet Cong. (pg. 358-359, The Vietnam War). They went full frontal: bombing cities all over Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia; using Agent Orange and napalm with no concern for damages to civilians or their dwelling place; implementing a severe lack of control during the search-and-destroy missions. All of these tactics, while they may have been effective at ratcheting up the number of Viet Cong casualties, also killed thousands of innocent civilians. This quickly turned the American populace against the war; without the support of its own people, there was no way the U.S. could have won.

2. The unpopularity of the South Vietnamese regime

Although the U.S. backed each and every South Vietnamese government, each and every one was corrupt. (pg. 354, The Vietnam War) The Vietnamese people had contempt for such governments, and were angry at them for not protecting their people more. It is highly difficult to institute an idea into a country when no one supports the idea in the first place; this is exactly what the U.S. was trying to do. They lost the war because no one - not the Vietnamese people, not the American soldiers - were really passionate about what they were fighting for; barely any Vietnamese wanted the Southern government in place anyways.

3. The experience of the Viet Cong and the inexperience of the American soldiers

The Viet Cong quickly learned that, in order to terrify and confuse the U.S. troops to the maximum amount, guerilla tactics were the best tactics to use. The American soldiers were unused to this style of fighting; they became scared of every Vietnamese person they saw, sure that they were really a Viet Cong fighter. The U.S. morale plummeted. (pg. 356, The Vietnam War) Also, the Americans were not used to fighting in jungle conditions - diseases and fatigue wore down the troops nearly as efficiently as the Viet Cong did.

4. Domestic opposition to the war in the U.S.

As mentioned before, it was impossible for the U.S. to win the war when it had little to no support on the home front. The new major usage of media played a big part in this; people were watching on television the Vietnamese children burning from napalm, they were reading in the newspaper about Kent State; the news surrounded then. (pg. 360, The Vietnam War) Protests sprung up all over the U.S.; the reason the U.S. finally began to pull out of the war was because the level of public dissent had become unbearable.

5. Chinese and Soviet support for the Viet Cong

From the time of the Viet Minf, both the Chinese and the USSR were supplying money and supplies to the Viet Cong, enabling the Viet Cong fighters to be just as technologically advanced as the U.S. troops. (pg. 353, The Vietnam War) This meant that the U.S had very little upper hand; they had no tangible advantage. Also, it meant that the U.S. could not use nukes on Vietnam without fear of immediate retaliation. The U.S. lost the war in part due to the fact that the Viet Cong and the U.S. troops were fairly equally matched technology-wise; the Viet Cong were simply more passionate and better used to the conditions.

6. 'But did they really lose?' Summarize the argument put forward in Source 57, and your view on it.
Source 57 claims that from a few standpoints, America technically could not have lost the Vietnam War. From a military standpoint, the U.S. never actually lost any major battles. Also, the Fall of Saigon occurred after the U.S. had pulled out - by that point, it was completely South Vietnam's problem. Finally, most of the people who were forced to evacuate during the Fall of Saigon were Vietnamese people; it was not the American military being forced out.

While this seems to be a good argument in theory, it is an argument put together by looking through only a few loopholes. No, the U.S. did not lose any major battles, but they were constantly losing smaller battles every day; killing innocent civilians in an attempt to eradicate the Viet Cong cannot and should not be counted as a victory. The Fall of Saigon came after the U.S. left, yes, but that doesn't exempt the U.S. from any blame or ties to the war; there were, in fact, still American non-military personal still in Vietnam giving aid to the Vietnamese people at that time. The main issue with Source 57's argument is that if the U.S. could not decisively lose the Vietnam War, then they also could not decisively win the Vietnam War. There is nothing that suggests an American victory anywhere within Vietnam, and in my opinion, the immense loss of life, resources, and respect that the U.S. suffered cause the Vietnam War to be counted as a loss for America.

Vietnam War Opposition

1. Note all of the reasons why you feel the war in Vietnam is wrong.
-It was wasting millions of lives, and billions of dollars, with no end in sight
-It was hypocritical: the U.S. was saying that they were there to remove Communism, but they were backing far more corrupt governments in South Vietnam
-Vietnamese civilians were being killed by the thousands
-Containment was clearly not a successful policy; it had not worked in the past, and it certainly was not working in Vietnam
-the U.S. was too set on looking good to the world; by the time thigns started to turn badly for them in Vietnam, they were too proud (and too far in) to back out
-It was causing unrest within the U.S.; people were being killed at protests, and the government was more hated than it had been since Hoover was in office

2. Note what you re trying to achieve with this poster. (e.g. to convince people to write to their Congressmen to get the troops out.)
This poster would be trying to convince people to let their voice be heard via peaceful protest; while they often became dangerous, they were a powerful statement, and an effective way to draw attention to the cause.

3. List possible images for your poster. Think about: background (e.g. destroyed villages); the central image (e.g. picture of a young soldier); whether you will need words to explain your image.
Images of injured Vietnamese children; images from other peace rallies; images of the effects of Agent Orange/napalm; images of the U.S. soldiers in contrast to the Vietnamese soldiers; words may be necessary, but minimalism would be best.

4. List some possible slogans for your poster.
-Rally for peace, let freedom increase
-Raising voices brings more choices
-Protest today, get out of My Lai
-Search for solutions, destroy violence
-Reason with the Vietcong, peace and love is never wrong

Vietnam War Turning Points

1. Why was the Tet Offensive a turning point? Explain your answer.
The Tet Offensive was a turning point in the war; while not exactly a military turning point, it was a turning point in the attitude with which Americans perceived Vietnam. After the Tet Offensive, people became very angry; it appeared that the U.S. was wasting time, money and lives in a situation where they clearly had never had the upper hand. The Offensive destroyed an ancient city; this raised more questions, such as what other precious things the war would destroy if it was allowed to continue. The Tet Offensive was not a clear victory for either the U.S. or the Viet Cong, but it was definitely a turning point within the minds of Americans.

2. Are Sources 51 and 52 making the same point about the My Lai Massacre?
Sources 51 and 52 make similar points, but not exactly the same one. Source 51 carries more remorse; it acknowledges more of the fact that they weren't meant to go to Vietnam to kill anyone, let alone civilians. There is a lot of guilt evident in Source 51; it implies that once the soldiers got to Vietnam, their view of the situation became warped and they acted without thinking. Source 52, while it also points out that the soldiers were not originally sent there to kill humans, seems to be colder about the event; it states that the soldiers saw the Vietnamese not as people, but as people who carried an evil idea that they were ordered to eradicate.

3. Why do you think it took 12 months for anyone to do anything about the massacre?
The army is often very good at covering its mistakes. The army, and the government, would not have wanted news of the massacre to get out; soldiers might have been afraid to speak up in order to avoid retribution. Also, freedom of speech is limited in times of war; everyone works to protect their country and make it look good. Soldiers may have felt that it would hinder the war effort if they let the truth out.

4. Why was the massacre so shocking to the American public?
Up until this point, Americans had not been fully aware of the bloodshed going on in Vietnam. They knew civilians were being killed, yes, but they saw it as an accident. After the My Lai massacre, the people began to turn not only against the government but against the soldiers, as well; perfectly innocent civilians had been murdered, simply because the army did not know what it was doing.