SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:
ADDENDUM TO “NIXON THAT S.O.B.”
I cite for historical precedent this incredibly grave, even ominous, moment in American history: Pres. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon was even charged (let alone convicted!) of any crime.
No one seemed to notice that a pardon by definition is intended to be issued after, not before, a person’s conviction, as indicated in this formal constitutional language:
“He [the president] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” –Constitution, Article II, Section 2.1.
Note the clear implication that “offenses” must be committed before a pardon or reprieve is to be considered and that the president’s power to grant reprieves and pardon does not extend to “cases of impeachment.”
The notion that the president has the right to start issuing pardons as soon as accusations are aired is ludicrous in the extreme.
Did Pres. Ford even have the power to grant a pardon in the manner that he did?
There’s a delicious double irony here: not only did Ford pardon Nixon before the latter was convicted of any “Offenses”, he actually lacked the power to forgive impeachable offenses in the first place!
Had the House and Senate acted and impeached Nixon (which is where matters were headed) Pres. Ford could not have “pardoned” Nixon for the latter’s impeachable offenses.
In short, if Pres. Ford had waited for a jury to convict Nixon of crimes committed while the latter was president, he might not have been able to pardon Nixon afterward–perhaps explaining why he did not wait.
How would history have been affected had the Constitution been followed?
Consider: had Nixon been put on trial in a court of law, the charges most certainly would have derived from wrongful acts he committed as president while occupying the White House.
His illegal actions would have served double duty: first as the basis for his impeachment and next as the foundation for a criminal trial–had he not circumvented this ultimate disgrace by resigning ahead of the coming train wreck.
Surely common sense tells us that the same offenses that led to his impeachment would have served again as accusations against him–once he was removed from office–in a criminal trial.
That’s why he needed a “pardon”, right?
This realization leads us to one inescapable conclusion: Pres. Ford pardoned his predecessor because he recognized the likelihood that Nixon would have been found guilty of criminal offenses!
So much for the old Anglo-Saxon-American notion of impartial jurisprudence best expressed in the phrase “No man, not even the president, is above the law.”
Apparently that’s not really true, not insofar as these two presidents are concerned. Nixon and Ford: what a clever pair they made by dodging all responsibility for Nixon’s lies and misdeeds! (“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” appears to apply only to ordinary Americans, not presidents.)
Crimes, impeachable offenses, a forced resignation, a gift pardon, and the Constitution: of these five elements, which shall we consider the most crucial to focus upon in unraveling this historical chain of events in order to strengthen and empower a better understanding of our choices in all future proceedings of like nature?
One choice is simple:
Follow the law . . . and let the chips fall where they may!
