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.