You need to check your history to see WHY it was done.
2006-12-28 22:46:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. Quite the opposite. It's a perfect example of how a democracy works. No man is above the law; nor is any man subject to arbitrary persecution outside of the law.
Gerald Ford had the constitutional authority to pardon Nixon...as all Presidents have the authority to pardon anybody for any reason. It would be undemocratic to have prohibited him from exercising his authority.
In a democracy, we're free to work to change the Constitution if we wish.
All Presidents have pardoned many people, many of whom had been convicted of crimes far worse than Nixon was alleged to have committed.
The crime of which Nixon was accused would normally not even be pursued by most prosecutors; and if it had been, would likely result in some misdemeanor conviction with a sentence of something like 1 year unsupervised probation plus the payment of court costs.
2006-12-29 07:41:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by 4999_Basque 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No way man are you a little daffy or what? It is the position of the president in the articles of the constitution that the president can give immunity to anyone he chooses. and that would be beneficial dont you think? After all the Commander and Chief of a Nation as powerful as America, I would think he would have a say in some things. Clinton gave 32 countries immunity from all their bills they owed the US it ran in the billions but that was okay right? I dont think so but that was his right. I would think we would have benefitted by those debts being paid then old tired out Nixon sitting in his mansion under house arrest by the Secret Service dont you? But because we are a democratic society we give those rights to the Chief and because we are democratic we vote that person out if we dont like them anymore. But sometimes just because it isnt our way we know that the majority ruled and we lost because there were more people voting for their side. and then because we are a democratic society we have the right to protest and organize in a committee to regroup and politic some more. and then vote democratic again and that is what makes us a democratic society.
2006-12-29 06:56:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, I believe he did that for two reasons: 1) He figured that would seal that moment in time and the nation as a whole could go on from there and begin anew. 2) He didn't want it to over shadow his presidency, ironically it did, and has anyway.
All in all, very few of us know what it's really like to be in such a position, I'm sure it's isolating at times, Even the greatest president, will err, and it is partly what makes him so. And every president, past, present, and future will make mistakes, some grave. And will never make everyone happy, but I'm sure everyone, including the present one, does the best they can.
2006-12-29 07:17:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Leadership has its compromises and this was a good one. Think about it for a sec....
Ford pardoned Nixon and therefore ended the debate and saved the US people from taking their eyes off what was important at the time and that is the healing at the end of the Viet Nam War.
2006-12-29 07:06:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I doubt you were alive then and could understand the mood of the country. Ford provided a quick, easy and livable solution for an ugly time in history. If a trial had dragged on for years, it would have under minded the whole meaning of democracy and the"American Way". Ford allowed a nation to heal and start fresh and new.
2006-12-29 06:47:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cherry_Blossom 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
No, a Democracy is about voting and a pardon has to do with justice.
2006-12-29 06:46:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Al Dave Ismail 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Gerald Ford is dead. Let it go. Ya shouldn't really rag on a dead guy.
2006-12-29 06:50:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Einsteinetta 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Who cares they are both dead
2006-12-29 06:45:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋