A common modern answer to this dilemma is "the President is not above the law." However, Nixon's statement is a bit out of context. Let's review:

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

Two interesting points:

1. Nixon quotes Abraham Lincoln, who made a similar argument.

2. Nixon's overall answer is unacceptably vague as a legal position since the basic design of the U.S. Constitution is to limit the powers of government, not to ensure them.

Nixon's defense leans considerably on his assumption that the electorate will ultimately limit his powers, but suggesting there is no precise legal constraint to prevent the Executive branch from conducting a wide variety of operations intended to secure the Union.

From a strict reading of the Constitution, there are no implied powers assigned to the President to conduct domestic security operations. However, the lack of mention does not necessarily exclude such actions from a traditional definition of "executive power."

This issue has been argued between the Executive and Legislative branches for decades, and will likely continue to be tested over time.

For details on Presidential powers assigned by the Constitution, see Article II: http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/article2.htm

As a practical matter, a President does possess the great power to pardon anyone who might commit a crime on his behalf. Thus, even if Nixon was wrong in principle, as a matter of expressed power he is practically right because though it might seem shocking in fact, Presidents really do have the power to ignore laws in providing escape for anyone accused or convicted of a crime.

In one important sense then, Nixon's argument clumsily stated is quite correct: The ultimate check on his power as President to order illegal acts is the electorate and not the details of law (an exception is that a President cannot pardon matters of Impeachment).

As it turns out, Nixon ultimately was confronted by the electorate he mentions, and opted to resign.

The answer I WANT to give, no. I don't agree that the President should be above the law.

The answer I HAVE to give, maybe. The reason for this is because although he does have the ability to pardon ANYONE for ANYTHING he deems warranted, does this in turn alleviate himself of any wrong doing by the mere fact that he can pardon himself? Do I agree that he should have this "ultimate power" ? Absolutely not. DOES he have this ultimate power? No one knows because it's never been attempted. Constitutionally, he DOES Have the power to do so as long as he does so before he's impeached. Once impeached, his power to pardon is revoked and thus he cannot pardon himself (obviously).

Examples of this:
"To pardon himself, Clinton would need only to take out a blank sheet of White House stationery, write out his pardon (he's signed 185 of them — so far the fewest of any of the modern president but enough to know what they say), and request that a couple of trusted White House aides witness his execution and delivery of his pardon deed. Is it really so simple? Yes; the courts have said there is no required form or procedure, nor need there be compliance with Justice Department clemency regulations." (source listed)

I use this quote as an example simply because it's the one I found, not because I think Clinton should have been impeached or not. It's also located on Findlaw.com which is a legal website for lawyers and finding out the skinny on laws.

I don't have to agree with the answer, but that IS the answer I suppose. The president has the legal authority to self-pardon should he see fit. There is no precedent because there hasn't been a President to attempt this. Because of this, he has the ability to do it (there's no law stating that he cannot as far as I could find) and as such IS "above the law."

Did he say that before or after resigning the Presidency for doing something illegal?

Perhaps "it" was illegal, then Ford pardoned him.