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.

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report