Thursday, March 3, 2011
In Tuesday's lecture it was mentioned that presidents after Nixon have used similar techniques to get what they want more quickly by dodging the formal channels, such as presidential signing statements. Because Nixon was able to come out clean after such legal atrocities, did that subtly signify to future presidents that it is within their right and power to act in such ways? Should Americans be just as suspicious now of our President's actions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Watergate definitely set a precedent. Though no president has ever publicly committed something as bad as Watergate, I think that possibly sometime a future, gutsy president might, or even might have already done. Has Nixon's public downfall taught his future peers to be more discrete? Another question is how bad will the atrocity be? Will it be another scandal based in paranoia? Or something far worse?
ReplyDeleteNixon's actions and especially his quote "if the President does it, its not illegal" definitely made an impression on future presidents. I think the fact that Nixon came out of the scandal unscarred not only made future presidents think it was within their right and power to bend the law but also may have made them more careful and discrete about doing so, which is why there has not been a scandal as public as Watergate.
ReplyDeleteI think an important policy to look at is the US patriot act that was passed pretty opportunistically after the attacks of 9/11. The bill is a very broad piece of legislation regarding terrorists. Agents of the government are authorized by the act to intercept phone calls, emails, etc. without court orders for the sake of security against terrorism. In many ways, the bill arguably undermines the power of our justice system and elicits a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" McCarthy-esque government apparatus used against suspected terrorists. I know in Michael Moore's documentary (of which you have to take with a grain of salt), the bill was passed secretly and quickly, supposing that not a single senator even read the bill. Regardless if this is true, I think the Patriot Act largely correlates with the sense of Paranoia and desire for executive power through bureaucratic institutions initiated by Nixon. Desperate times call for desperate measures--Nixon showed this and I believe it was, perhaps, mirrored by George Bush. The Patriot Act certainly has been severely criticized but the truth is that the bill has not yet replicated a watergate scandal......but who knows......in the wikileaks era, we may see something sooooon!
ReplyDeleteNixon is not the first president to assume powers not granted to him by the Constitution. The role of the president has significantly changed from the time it was created. In fact, the founders were convinced that Congress would be by far the most powerful and influential branch of our government. Furthermore, many of the founders were fearful that if they granted the president too much power, he would eventually transform his role into a more monarchical position. Many of the ambiguous powers granted to the president by the Constitution have cause controversy as to how much power the president actually possesses. As a result, I doubt that Nixon's circumstances have deterred any president from not assuming more power, but instead made them more wary about the extent to which he goes to do so. As Americans, we too should also be wary of the president's power, regardless of Nixon's actions.
ReplyDelete