President Nixons activities?
Were nixons illegal activities intended to help the country?\
What was the purpose?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
~No, his activities were not undertaken with the nation in mind. He was trying to protect his power, his position and his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
CREP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) had too much money and too much time on its hands. The McGovern campaign was self-destructing. Nixon was a paranoid megalomaniac, and he surrounded himself with equally unstable aids. Their goal was to keep their boy in office and, when they got caught, to cover up the involvement at the highest levels of government. It was Banana Republic tactics and politics at their gruesome best (worst). The last thought on anyone's mind (in the cadre of the corrupt) was the good of the nation. As much as I hate to say it, Nixon actually did some positive things during his presidency, but he was prone to put himself above the law, the constitution, his oath of office and simple common sense when they got in his way. The debacle of Watergate was totally unnecessary and stupid. Nixon's arrogance, insecurity, paranoia, ego and hubris frequently got in the way of his judgment and with Watergate, all his chickens came home to roost. His purpose throughout his career was to promote himself and his career. When caught with his hand in the till, his purpose was to hide his involvement, blame others and generally to avoid responsibility. Rather ironic for a man who campaigned on a platform of law and order, but no one ever denied Dickie's hypocrisy.
- RicardoLv 61 decade ago
THE COMPLETE STORY
EXTRACT from this page
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974), argued 8 July 1974, decided 24 July 1974 by vote of 8 to 0; Burger for the Court, Rehnquist not participating. A climactic incident in a dramatic event in U.S. history—the only case of a president being driven out of office in disgrace—the decision in United States v. Nixon was also a major constitutional landmark. It established the conditional nature of presidential immunity and in turn, may have affected the later decision, in Butz v. Economou (1978), not to follow the plurality view in Barr v. Matteo (1959) of absolute administrative immunity. Above all, it reined in extravagant assertions of President Richard Nixon's lawyers, who claimed presidential power to be unlimited, especially as to foreign and defense matters, and defined solely by a president's own judgment. In forcefully refuting such claims and proclaiming that no one is above the law, Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion nevertheless twice quoted Chief Justice John Marshall's words, in United States v. Burr (1807), to the effect that presidential accountability to the legal order does not mean courts may proceed with the president as with any other citizen. Burger also enunciated a strong presumption of executive immunity and privilege.