Gerald Ford knew that Richard Nixon could possibly be prosecuted for the crimes he committed as President. That was simply a fact when President Ford told his predecessor “a complete, free and absolute pardon” 50 years ago this week.
Former presidents didn’t enjoy comprehensive immunity from criminal prosecution until July 1, 2024, when six members of the Supreme Court created this privilege in Trump against the United States.
In 1974, when Nixon's resignation would likely result in prosecution for his role in lots of the Watergate crimes, Republicans within the White House and Congress were based on the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 established that former presidents were criminally liable but not immune. Even after impeachment, conviction, and removal from office, “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable, and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.”
Ford faced this fact in his Declaration of pardon: “Because of certain acts or omissions prior to his resignation from the office of President, Richard Nixon is in danger of being impeached and tried for crimes against the United States.”
Nixon had a right to a good trial, Ford said. The Constitution guarantees this to everyone. But Ford expressed doubts about whether America would find a way to present Nixon a good trial until months or perhaps years had passed. That was his reasoning for pardoning Nixon.
For most Americans, it wasn't adequate.
George Tames/New York Times Co./Getty Images
From anger to respect
According to a poll, only 26 percent of Americans supported the pardon, while 59 percent were against it.
Reporters interviewed outraged residents.
“What about the others in his administration who are on trial?” asked John Dawdy, a Vietnam veteran and law student. After all, Nixon’s co-conspirators, including a former Attorney General And former White House Chief of Staffreceived fair trials.
Joseph Hickel, a refugee from Czechoslovakia, saw “the danger of future crimes” by presidents if Nixon's crimes went unpunished. Ann Robinson of Cerritos, California, said: “This pardon makes the incumbent seem like a king.”
Opinions modified as Watergate faded into oblivion, and in 1986 A poll found that only 39% were against it for pardoning Nixon and 54% for it.
Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts and critic of the 1974 pardon, later concluded that Ford was right and gave him a Profile within the Courage Award in 2001 for taking an unpopular but conscientious stance.
During the Trump administration, when one other president was under impeachment and prosecution, public opinion concerning the Nixon pardon modified again. Americans were completely polarized: 38% in favor, 38% against.
In light of the Trump experience, some historians looked back and saw Nixon’s pardon in a brand new light: as harmful precedent Establishment of the President impunity.
No one is above the law
This 12 months, Americans must grapple with a brand new consequence of pardons. Because Ford's decision robbed the country of a precedent for prosecuting a former president, the Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices were capable of fill that void with what I call a radical revision the structure.
The majority of the court Ruling that presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution for his or her “official acts” would have forgiven most of Nixon’s Watergate crimes. Nixon used the CIA to obstruct the FBI's Watergate investigation; created a illegal, unconstitutional secret police unit; sicced the IRS on political opponents; commuted the sentence of former Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa of jury tampering and pension fund fraud in exchange for union support; and blackmailed campaign donors in return for presidency favors.
Under Trump against the United States, Nixon needn’t have frightened a couple of pardon. He could have declared all these crimes to be “official acts” that he had committed throughout the scope of his powers as president.
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
Ironically, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, who consider themselves “originalists” and pride themselves on adhering to the literal wording of the Constitution and the unique intent of its framers, have provided an ideal example of the risks of allowing judges to rewrite the Constitution to suit their particular preferences.
The Watergate break-in occurred the identical 12 months that Joe Biden has entered national politics as a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware. Newly elected Senator Biden criticized the pardon a day after Ford issued it, saying: “It puts a man above the law.”
Biden couldn’t have known that fifty years later, in his final 12 months in national politics, the Supreme Court would authorize presidents to commit Nixon-style crimes – or worse – throughout the scope of their official authority and without fear of punishment.
As a part of his legacy, Biden has proposed Constitutional amendment to repair the damage done by Trump v. United States. Its name reflects the principle Biden invoked 50 years ago. It is named the “No One Is Above the Law Amendment.” It would strip presidents of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as “official acts.” As a soon-to-be former president, Biden could have so much to lose by passing his own amendment.
This 12 months’s Republican candidate has often expressed Eagerness to prosecute Biden despite an absence of evidence of a criminal offense. In the case of Trump v. United States, Biden enjoys extensive immunity. According to the amendment “No one is above the law,” he would lose this privilege.
The amendment shouldn’t be only an example of Biden putting the country before himself, but in addition an indication of courage.
image credit : theconversation.com