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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment