Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by YegorL (U14065393) on Saturday, 11th July 2009

  The obvious ethical crimes committed by this President of the USA are undoubted, however, what exact charges inflicted upon him?

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 11th July 2009

  You can read the Articles of Impeachment here:
  
  
  
  Nixon resigned before there was a trial in the Senate and subsequently received a pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, negating any criminal proceedings. However had there been a trial at least 67 Senators were required to vote in favour of each Article of Impeachment for them to have been upheld.
  
  The probability is that Article 1 would have succeeded whereas Articles 2 & 3 are more problematic. However it needed only the passage of one of the Articles to secure conviction. The only penalty Nixon faced was removal from office.

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by YegorL (U14065393) on Saturday, 11th July 2009

  So what were the charges exactly?
  
  However, the Watergate was not the only revealed action for which Nixon was to face criminal responsibility, if I am right?

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 12th July 2009

  The articles of impeachment, which were prepared by the House of Representatives and would have been tried by the Senate, were the charges and the link provides the text. The first covers obstruction of justice, the second abuse of power and the third contempt of Congress.
  
  The obstruction of justice was always the easiest charge to prove due to the "smoking gun" found in the subpoeaned audiotapes where Nixon is heard discussing pardons for the burglars in return for their silence as to the sponsorship of the operation.
  
  You should also remember that impeachment was a political, not a criminal, process although (as in the later case of Clinton in 1998) it would have been conducted in a quasi-judicial manner. The only criminal charge that could have been laid against Nixon after he left office (he was immune from criminal prosecution whilst in office) was also obstruction of justice (the other two charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment were political not criminal offences) assuming that Nixon did not know about the burglary in advance (which has never been proveen).
  
  I think there were attempts to widen the articles of impeachment to include widening the Vietnam War into Cambodia in 1970 which again would have been a political rather than a criminal offence but it was decided to restrict the impeachment articles to the events surrounding the Watergate burglary to achieve the broadest possible consensus.

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by YegorL (U14065393) on Sunday, 12th July 2009

  Al Gore in his book "The Assault On Reason" draws certain parallels between the rule of Nixon and his abuse of power and George Bush with his premeditated quest for excuses for the Iraq invasion. Is it right to say that there are similarities in the rules of the two Presidents?
  
  And as to George W. Bush, can anything be said about the number of the laws (over a 1000) the constitutionality of which he challenged using the "signing statements"? Does that number and the abuse of tradition not cause any inquiries into their legality?

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 13th July 2009

  FWIW, here's a wiki on signing statements:
  
  
  
  Signing statements technically have no legal standing or merit; they're merely declarations of how the president personally interprets the act he just signed into law, and how he'll go about enforcing it.
  
  

  Link to this forum: To what extent was Nixon's rule illegitimate?

  Report message6

Back to top