Friday, May 08, 2009

Blog #14 - "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal!"


"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If the President
approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of
significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out to do so without violating the law. "
- Richard M. Nixon





During all of the Vietnam protests, President Nixon became convinced that there was a foreign power/country/enterprise directing these American kids, so he wanted to find out who and how these directives were getting done. He signed an Executive Order that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests and other crazy things. The FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants. These powers were later curtailed by Congress in the mid 70s, but then expanded again recently in the name of securing the nation from another terrorist attack called the Patriot Act.


"Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, 'Go right ahead'." -
Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.

So, give me your comments on Nixon's statements. (pick one of the following questions).
1. Is it o.k. for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war? Why or why not? Do you agree with Nixon's reasoning? Why or why not?




2. Or, comment on any similarities to today's events in the war on terror. Think about the comparisons to the Patriot Act, National Security Agency's unwarranted wiretapping, checking emails, library records, torture and methods of torture, etc. Since we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil in almost eight years (knock on wood), does this lack of an attack mean that what we've doing is working? Why or why not? If President Bush / Obama hadn't or doesn't continue to do these measures, then who is at fault for another attack? CIA? NSA? The President? Bush/Obama is in a no-win situation here: you do too much, he's infringing on peoples' rights. He does too little, he gets most if not all of the blame.

Due Monday, May 11. 200 words minimum. Git 'er done!

Check out this website on Watergate: http://watergate.info/


35 comments:

sam s 5th hour said...

I do believe that the president can do anything to defend the United States during war because I think that it’s the president’s job to do what ever it takes to defend our freedom and safety. I do agree with Nixon for monitoring phone calls, emails, and homes to protect US freedom from anything that may harm it. I do believe to some extent if the president does it is legal and he shouldn’t get in trouble for it. Bit if the president is committing a serious crime or hurting or violating someone else’s freedom then he should have consciences of be punished.

Tim T. said...

There are things that you can compare about the Vietnam War and the Iraq war, comparing how the government is tapping our phones from when Nixon was president and then to the government today. In both wars the people of America were all for the war, but as it progressed people started to see all the young men and woman coming home died, injured and mentally scared. The one thing the war of Iraq does not have a lot of is protest, nothing like the Vietnam protest. The way the government taps are phones today is something they like to call nation security. None of the American people know if this is working or not, but it probably has. You must think it is important to tap people that could be threading. When President Nixon wiretapped the kids that protest to see who is relying to protest the war. That is wrong and it wastes the resource to spy on college kids. The way we torture terrorist is working, the American people only hear the bad things the CIA agents are doing. When Presidents Bush was in office all his focus was on stopping terrorist, he did do a good job we have not had another attack in 8 years. That is how Bush’s reputation is going to be seen in the republicans eyes but the demarcate will see president as a man that destroyed the economy and a war that we should have never went into. In GITMO we have the worst people in the world, for president Obama to shut it done is not smart because that is say he is trying to make peace, and you can not make peace after destroying their country, it is like Vietnam how the presidents were trying to make peace with the North Vietnam when we bombed and destroyed the forest and crops. If we see another attack on U.S soil again it is the presidents fault, because he is showing weakness by shutting down the GITMO, if you were the most hated terrorist in the world you would take advantage of this because it seems like a weak spot in the armor. Both Bush and Obama were and are in tough spots with their presidency. Bush by going into the war to far, by some people’s eyes. Obama for putting to much money into the stimulus bill and showing weakness to are most dangerous enemy. All presidents will have been scrutinized for what they did in office but they all have a reputation good or bad.

Chris Webberly 3rd hour said...

In response to number 1, I do believe it is alright for the President to do whatever he must do to become successful in war, but Nixon took it to a whole new level. Being able to raid homes, offices, tap phones and open mail without warrants is way too extreme. They should have a reason to believe that you are a part of a terrorist attack, or being an inside man for another country if they are going to do what I mentioned above. But, doing this to the average American, say like me, calling my Grandmother to wish her a happy mothers day, is absolutely ridiculous. During a time in war like Vietnam, President Nixon had some reason to believe that doing things like this would help the war cause. But, what if the American people had found out about this when it was happening? That would just make the American citizens mad, and the terrorists happy, because they just found out that the Government can search and listen in on conversations they were having. So now, they are just going to discuss whatever terrorists discuss, elsewhere. Having the American people upset will most definitely not give you a good support rating, and a re-election as President.

Jake Prosyniuk, 3rd Hour said...

No, the president should not be allowed to do whatever he wants during wartime, under Nixon's reasoning we'd be a dictatorship. Our founding fathers could have given the president unlimited power during wartime if they felt that was the right thing to do, but they recognized that man is flawed, and even the most powerful elected official in the country has room for mistake. If the president is allowed to do whatever he feels is right to protect our nation, what if he feels what is right to protect our country is to declare himself ruler for life, or grant himself the power to overrule congress? Either of those would be the downfall of democracy in our nation as we know it, and from there, becoming a dictatorship would be a huge possibility. Our nation was created around the belief that government should be by the people, for the people. If we have no say in our leader's actions, how is our government by us? Our president may be acting in the way that he thinks is for us, but I believe our nation should be able to decide for themselves what is best for us. We must stop presidents who do things without us knowing or without us having a say in it, if we are to preserve democracy.

johanna said...

I do agree to some extend with Nixon’s policy of monitoring people via listening to their phone calls and reading their mail. However, I think it is a very risky thing to do, because many people who work with doing such a thing could use it in bad and harmful ways. It is the president’s job to represent the American people and do everything necessary to keep the United States save. However, I think he should only do as much as the majority of the people would approve of; because if he wouldn’t then he would not represent America correctly. Nixon believed he could do anything and that was his mistake, which made the Americans loose trust in him.
In a way I don’t think the president should have the full power to decide everything during wartime. Although he has his advisors and staff members who help him making decisions I think it’s a bad idea.
However, if the President can make a quick decision during wartime it would help the war, because the decision does not have to go through Congress and get approved of and this saves a lot of time. Also, the media can’t cover the decision and so the enemy and the rest of the world get to know the President’s decision.

Allison Smart said...

Even though the president has a very high position in the United Government, I don’t believe that he should have the right to do whatever he wants. Even in the time of war he shouldn’t be able to break the law just because he is president. Yes, the president of the United States does have significance to our country but even then he is an ordinary person. Before he was president he was just like every other person in our country. So does he have the right to cheat the legal system? NO. In time of war things should be done to protect ouir country but we should make sure that they are legal and reasonable. We should always have the people in mind when we make decisions especially if they are going to invade privacy. I do understand why Nixon thought that he was able to do things like bug peoples phones, read e-mail and letters, and invade privacy because he was president. These things were a big crime and no one should be doing them. He shouldn’t be breaking the law he should be the role model for them. I don’t think that Nixon should have had this reasoning but I do understand why he thought them. Nixon didn’t realize what he was doing when he said this to the American people.

Allison Smart

Sarra Serhane said...

I believe that only in desperate situations it is okay for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. The president should only do something unconstitutional if it is truly the only way to keep the people of the United States safe. This might seem shady and unfair to the rest of the people of the United States if a president is allowed to do something against the law, but if the president’s intentions are only to help and keep the people of the United States safe from a terrorist attack, I believe that it is okay. When President Nixon said “When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If the President approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out to do so without violating the law. "I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning and I think he was being too blunt and rude with what he was saying. With him saying this, he made himself sound like a jerk and unpatriotic. I believe that if the president does something illegal it does not mean that what he is going is not illegal, it means that he is are breaking the law to better our country.

Anonymous said...

The president should not be allowed to do about anything in the time of war. Even if he is president, no one is above the law. some people might think they are (nixon) but they are not. The president shouldnt allow torturing of people but it still happens and we all know it.

I do not belive with nixon's reasoning at all because he thought he was above the law and no one could touch him. obviously he was very wrong. Even if you are president you shouldnt be allowed to do unlawful things like nixion did when he was president.
Kyle Dewald
3rd

A said...

I think that it is okay for the president to do most things in times of war, in order to defend the country, but only if there is a real honest threat. Tapping phone lines or monitoring internet conversations is definitely okay if it is being done to protect the nation. However breaking in to houses is different, because that is something that would easily freak people out, and make them not feel safe. That is a very extreme measure, so I think that should not be allowed, without a warrant. If it is something that threatens peoples feeling of safety I think it should be more strongly discouraged against. I understand where Nixon was coming from when he said if the president does it, it’s not illegal, because the president may have to do things for national security, but I think that power should be reviewed. There should be a checks and balances type system for the presidents on decisions that would violate laws. I agree with Nixon’s reasoning for his comment, if I was the president I would probably say the same thing. The president should have the power that others would not have, to protect the United States, especially during war times.

Allison Woodberg (5th hour) said...

I think that it is okay for the president to do most things in times of war, in order to defend the country, but only if there is a real honest threat. Tapping phone lines or monitoring internet conversations is definitely okay if it is being done to protect the nation. However breaking in to houses is different, because that is something that would easily freak people out, and make them not feel safe. That is a very extreme measure, so I think that should not be allowed, without a warrant. If it is something that threatens peoples feeling of safety I think it should be more strongly discouraged against. I understand where Nixon was coming from when he said if the president does it, it’s not illegal, because the president may have to do things for national security, but I think that power should be reviewed. There should be a checks and balances type system for the presidents on decisions that would violate laws. I agree with Nixon’s reasoning for his comment, if I was the president I would probably say the same thing. The president should have the power that others would not have, to protect the United States, especially during war times.

Brandon Kauth said...

I think it is okay for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. If there is a substantial threat to the freedom of the people of our country, I believe any and all necessary steeps should be taken in order to get rid of this threat. But I don’t agree when Nixon says “If the president does it, its not illegal.” I believe that that can be taken out of context to mean if the president actually does something that is illegal, then people feel they have the right to do that illegal thing, which is obviously not right. I’m sure it does depend on the situation that the president is in, and what he does. It is the Presidents job to defend this country from all terrorist, foreign and domestic. I do think the Patriot Act is a very good idea. Normal people should not have any problem with it, because if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. That act is in force to protect people from suspected terrorists plotting new attacks and or contributing to crime. That way, the real bad people can be punished, that’s justice for you.

Jake Chmara (5th) said...

I don’t believe that it is ok for the President to do anything necessary in defense of the U.S. in times of war. I think that the President can go farther but I don’t think he can do anything he wants. I definitely don’t think that he can do anything considered evil. I believe that the President may push matters a bit farther than normal but I do not think that he may do things such as torture which we are strongly against. I think that it also depends on the situation. If he must do something considered illegal for the greater good, then I think it has potential to be tolerated. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning at all. It doesn’t matter who you are, you are still not above the law. The President especially is someone who enforces and creates the law. He is that last person to think that he is above it and can do whatever he wants. If what the President did was not illegal, the President could basically go out and do whatever he wants with no penalty or worries. Just because you are the president doesn’t mean that you are above the law and can do whatever you please.

mary said...

Mary Seymour
I think that the president should be able to do just about anything that they feel is best for the country as a whole, and best for our allies. There should be general guidelines thought, and congress should need to have a certain amount of votes because if we get some wacko president, that decides to do something crazy that he thinks might be good for the country, but no one else in congress agrees with him and thinks it is a good idea, then he shouldn’t be able to do it. In order to become president you must have some idea of what’s good and bad for the country so I don’t think we would have to worry if they’re gonna make a huge mistake that will hurt a ton of people. And if it’s a bad Idea, it won’t happen cause congress won’t vote for it therefore the plan will be vetoed. I agree with Nixon’s reasoning, SOMEWHAT but not all the way cause very rarely does this happen, but if the pres comes up with an insane plan considering the defense of the United States, then something has to be done to stop him. So my idea is it’s ok for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the us during a time of war IF congress agrees with him.

Anonymous said...

Melanie Eiten 3rd hour
I do not believe that it is ok for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. I don’t believe this because the president is an American and Americas should all have the same rights no exceptions of the amount of power you have on the country or how wealthy you are. During a time of war the president should work with his whole staff to make a decision on what is best for the defense of his country, not him making a decision on his own. The president does not have the right to privately make deals with different people who can get him and many other important people in trouble. In order to do defend the country the president should let the American people know what his plans of action are so we can know his defense plan. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning because he thinks that since he is the president he has the right to do whatever he wants and he can’t get in trouble for it because he is the president of the United States. All people are created equal which I think should include the president of the United States.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that it is ok for the president to do anything in the time of war. Presidents of course are able to bend rules but there are of course things that are just over the line. Nixon was freaking out about the protests so he thought it was a good idea to spy on EVERYONE. This may have been an appropriate act but an unnecessary one. If the president was that willing to obtain information he might as well have captured an innocent teenager protesting and interrogated him. That may seem harsh but it is the same principles. Of course breaking our privacy and breaking our bones are two different completely different principles it doesn’t make them any less wrong. Superman is a good example of someone that Nixon should look up too. He is a man/kryptonian that will never kill any living being because that is what he stands for. Nixon took the presidency saying hey I will be awesome and not hurt our own people cause that would be wrong. Nixon did the wrong. Superman always found a way to get rid of a problem/villain without killing them and that is what he promised he would do. The moral of this story is that Presidents should read comics to find better ways to deal with foreign powers and national threats.

Ryan St. John

Anonymous said...

No it’s ok for the president to do whatever he wants to do doing war time. Even doing war time the president still has to follow the laws the constitution doesn’t give the president the power to do whatever he wants for a reason. During time of war the president should work with his advisers he shouldn’t be able to declare war without congress behind him. I think that Nixon was just freaking out so he did what he thought was the right thing to do. But he went to far when he started listening to peoples phone conversations. Nixon made a very big mistake for doing this even though he thought he was doing the right thing he really wasn’t. Also Nixon should have tried to work better congress so that they could have done some thing different.

Devonny Bell
3rd hour

Matt Trogu said...

I do not think that the president is entitled to do anything at a time of war because if the president would do something bad enough then he could end up hurting innocent civilians. For example during the Vietnam War the United States used chemical weapons of great proportions for the first time during war. By doing this we gave many of the local civilian’s cancer and we killed many. When we use or do anything we want then we could possibly kill or harm other countries people. During today’s war if we did anything that we wanted then we would probably use Nuclear weapons. If the United States used nuclear weapons during war today then our enemies would Fire nuclear weapons back to us. I do not agree with president Nixon’s reasoning. I think that if he says somebody could do this then he has to make sure that the subversive groups were being funded by Americans. When he knew all this information then he could tap into American phone lines, open e-mail, and break into houses. Without knowing this then he should not be allowed to have all of these powers. This is why I disagree with President Nixon’s reasoning.

Kevin Luyckx said...

I don’t think anyone should be above the law weather he is president or not. What Nixon did was illegal and he should pay for what he did. His reasoning for what he did makes me laugh in a way he is saying I did it because I’m the president and I deserve to get away with it. “If the President approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance” Nixon says this but this is the problem I have the US wasn’t in a situation where he needed to do this. Nixon did this for himself to win the election he may tell you that he was doing it for the American people to protect us from the coummist but why would he then break into the Watergate building and tape the democrat’s phone calls? The answer is to get an advantage to win the election. He allowed the FBI to break the law by letting them break into people’s homes without search warrants. In my mind Nixon wasn’t protecting the US from anything while he was tapping into others phone calls he was only helloing himself, maybe if he came across somebody on the phone saying there were going to blow up the white house that could be different but there is no proof that he ever came across something like that. It is similar in today’s pop culture when an athlete or singer commits a crime they can usually get away with a smaller sentence, but if that was an average citizen that person could go to jail for a long time. I’m not saying that Nixon shot have went to jail for 100 years I’m saying that he should have had to face the people and really explain to use why he did these things.

Kevin Luyckx

elaina gardner said...

I think that the president should have the same rules to follow as the people of America. How are they supposed to tell us to follow a law if they aren’t going to follow it themselves? I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning. I think that we can get through the war without breaking laws and doing things that ruin the respect we have for the president and the government. I think that the fact that it’s the time of war has nothing to do with being allowed to break a rule. They still should follow laws regardless of the circumstances because rules are there for a reason.
An example of this is Bush using torture to get information out of reason. I personally feel that using torture to get information is a hundred percent out of the question and should never be done. Doing this is just as bad as saying that it’s okay to stab someone because they won’t tell you a secret. Sounds ridiculous but in reality that is what’s going on. Nixon in my opinion said this because he wanted to be forgiven for doing something that he got in trouble for. I believe that this is an absolute horrible thing to do and that Nixon should not have been forgiven for this.

Lisa S fifth said...

Depending on the situation at hand when doing something that goes against a law that an everyday American would follow, the president sometimes should and shouldn’t abide by the rules. In Nixon’s case, withholding the tapes that he recorded in his office to “protect secrets only the government is allowed to know” is completely wrong. Nixon only claimed his executive privilege to try to cover up the lie he was caught in, which was being involved in the Watergate scandal. So when the president is using his power in the wrong way then he should have to follow the constitution like everyone else. Now in other cases where it really is better for the American people and not just the president himself then I think the rules can be bent. Tapping into someone’s phone is an invasion of privacy, but if it could stop a repeat of something as terrible as 9/11 I think that it’s necessary to do something like that. When a law is bent, congress should be notified and the President shouldn't be allowed to keep it to just themselves. When it comes to breaking a law to make Americans safer, it has to be carefully looked at to make sure there isn’t a legal way to take action and fix the problem.

Katie Robinson said...

1. Although I wouldn't agree to some of the possible consequences of acts like The Patriot Act, I would say that it isn't a bad thing that our president has the power to create such acts.
First of all, I don't think that the people of America need to worry about the president misusing that power. There are a lot of people behind the president, and I'm sure that if the President ever got to misusing or abusing their power in a very bad way that it would get out or be stopped.
Second, I think that while everyone in the United States may not like or fully appreciate the President, we have to take into consideration that we were the ones who elected them. I think that when America elects a president, we should all be able to stand behind them, whether we had voted for them or not.
I think that being able to stand behind the President also goes hand in hand with trusting the President. We have to be able to trust that our President is doing all that they can to help and protect us, and to work as hard as they can for a just cause.

Anonymous said...

CHANEL JOHNSON

1. Is it o.k. for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war? Why or why not? Do you agree with Nixon's reasoning? Why or why not?


I do think that it is okay for the president of The United States to do anything that he wants to do during times of war. I think this because if you are president it is your job to decide what you think would be the best decision for your country. Also i think that depending on what he decides should be a part of everyone that his decision will affect. If the president were to hire people to spy on Americans today their would be so much conflict Americans would probly start their own war against the president. Also if the president were to make a decision does not mean that it is not illegal. Even though he is the president and he can change what is illegal and what is not... to the American People it is. Whatever people of the United States do affects the people around them and whatever the president does affects the United States.. EX: Watergate. No i do not agree with Nixons reasoning for what he did. He didnt like it when Frost got into his phone calls and shreaded him into pieces and since Nixon was just as equal and the american people im sure the American people didnt like it when this was happening to them.

bobby haag said...

QUESTION 1. Sometimes the president has to break the law to do something right or something better for the country. I think it is okay for the president to do about anything when it comes to the defense of America. Also if we are in a war, the president can chose what to do since he is the president of the country. When Nixon said “When the President does it that means it’s not illegal”, I believe he was right. However, if it is something illegal out of the extremes, I probably would not agree with him fully. If it is something to help a bad situation turn into a good one in a time of need, than it is alright. So depends on the situation for me to agree with what Nixon had said, but overall I think the president has that right. Bobby Haag. – was sick.

Anonymous said...

No i do not agree with Nixon’s ideas because his way of thought is that the president can do anything that he feels is right even if it is illegal to benefit the united states which is good but some presidents will think something is right for the nation when really it could drastically hurt them and cause even greater problems with other countries than they already have at the time of the decision. That is why the president needs approval from others as well so that incidents like this doesn’t happen when they could be easily avoided. If the president were to get approval for action even if it was illegal then i think that would be appropriate but for the president to decide on something so important by himself is not smart and not good technique to running our country in the direction of successes.

sydney hirsch said...

I don’t think it’s okay for the president to do anything in defense of the United States during a time of war. I understand that it’s his/her job to defend and protect the country, but there is a line that should be drawn. For example, I don’t think the president should deceive or lie extremely to the country. I don’t think the president should be lying to the country in the first place, but there are certain situations in which information would be better kept concealed or private. The president should follow the same laws the American people follow as well. Like when Nixon said, “When the president does it, it’s not against the law,” that is something I disagree with. Even though he/she is in charge of the country, they are no better than the citizens and therefore should follow the same laws citizens have to. That being said, the president should do whatever they can in their power that is acceptable to protect the country and defend it. I don’t think it’s appropriate to do anything corrupt to defend the country, and I think it’s inappropriate to use ‘I was defending the country!’ as an excuse to do something corrupt.

Dallas Paritee said...

I chose question number one. I don’t really have a side with this topic but I do believe there may be certain times where the President must make the best decision that he can within the best interests of the country but not to benefit himself. I do not think that Nixon made the best decision in trying to cover-up the Watergate scandal. I kind of do agree with Nixon’s reasoning but to an extent. This is one of those subjects where you could side either way depending on the circumstances. But in this respect I don’t believe in Nixon’s reasoning.

luke szczurek said...

No i dont think that the president can do anything he wants. I dont agree with Nixons statement that whatever a president does is right. By saying that hes basically saying he can still money or kill someone and was right by doing so. The president if anything needs to follow the laws better then the American people. By doing this he is setting a good example to the country. During the time of war the president needs to talk his decions with everyone that has a say in it. He shouldnt jus do what he wants because everyone has a say and hes not a dictator so he shouldnt be able to just do that.

Anonymous said...

During a time of war I still think it is not ok for the President of the United States to do illegal things. If it’s illegal, It’s illegal, and that should stand for anyone. I think it funny and stupid that a president of all people would do something illegal and then think its ok just because he is the president of the Unites States. I mean there might be boarder line things me might do because there is no other option but when you do something totally illegal and think you can get away with it just because of your job title I do not think that is right and that kind of person should not be the head of our state. I think he got away easy when he was pardoned because he did some pretty illegal things and he got away not having to do anything but shake the presidents hand. Jacob SIlver

Anonymous said...

Yes, I do believe that is is alright for the president to do just about anthing he/she wants in defense of the United States. Being the president, it is s must that you are willing to do whatever, whenever, for the sake of the country. However the decisions you make must be the best possible decision that will most likely lead to a positive outcome. Along with being the presdetn of the United States comes great responsibility. Which means the rest of the country looks to you to keep them safe, and do the best job you possibly can at running the country without any errors. Therefor you must make snap-decisions on what you fell is in the country's best interest. However some of the remarks said by president Nixon I do not agree with. i do not believe that the president should break laws, and believe it's legal because he's the president. I believe the president should follow the same rules, as everyone else, and be a leader.
Allacia Gibson
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

Blog#14
When a president does it, it is not illegal.

President Nixon did go far in using his powers. He did certain things in his interests saying that they are in the best interests of the people. He did violate his executive privileges. I think the president should have the same laws as a normal American citizen has. He should be equally answerable to anyone and everyone. Nixon was very wrong when he said during his interview. He basically meant to say that the president can be a dictator, and thought whatever he did was right and not illegal. In this case. He never went to a fair trial in his life but eventually through the frost/Nixon interviews he went through the same trauma and carried the burden throughout his life.

Gauri

Anonymous said...

I think that, yes, the president should do whatever he/she needs to do to protect the United States during a time of war, but there should certain boundaries to be followed. Obviously, the choices the president makes shouldn’t harm anybody’s life or anything but, they’re the president of our country, we’re relying on them to keep us safe and protect and to lead us in a time where we don’t really know what to do, so the president should be somewhat of a comfort blanket to us. If we can’t rely on our president to keep us safe, then who can we rely on? Yet, if the president says they can, and will, protect us, they should be telling us the truth. With some examples from the past, the presidents haven’t really been honest to us; like telling us we’re safe when we really aren’t, telling us our economy status is fine when it’s really not, etc. So I feel that if the president says we’re safe, then they should stick by their word. But, I don’t quite agree with Nixon when he says, “When the President does it, that means it's not illegal.” If the president went around doing illegal things, does that make it okay for the American people to do it?

Katie N.

Anonymous said...

BLOG 14:
I think that the president should be able to do just about anything that they feel is best for the country as a whole, and best for our allies. There should be general guidelines thought, and congress should need to have a certain amount of votes because if we get some insane dumb president, that decides to do something crazy that he thinks might be good for the country, but no one else in congress agrees with him and thinks it is a good idea, then he shouldn’t be able to do it. In order to become president you must have some idea of what’s good and bad for the country so I don’t think we would have to worry if they’re gonna make a huge mistake that will hurt a ton of people. If the president comes up with a bad idea then congress with veto the idea. I agree with Nixon’s reasoning, but not all the way cause very rarely does this happen, but if the pres comes up with an insane plan considering the defense of the United States, then something has to be done to stop him. So my idea is it’s ok for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the us during a time of war if congress agrees with him.
-Amanda S.

Jaz said...

I feel that if a president does something illegal during war then he should get punished for his actions. If the crime is nothing big I can understand that the president is trying to do the right thing to protect the country but if the crime could definitely start controversy then the president should get punished for it. If a president should do illegal things at another country and keep it a secret from America and if it like torture the president should be punished. As in impeached or prison. Something that fits the height of the crime done. Jaz C.

Alana Walker (5th hour) said...

No, I do not think that it is ok for the president to do just ANYTHING in defense of the country. I do not think the president should be able to make a decision without consulting someone first, whether it be the vice president, or whomever. Nor do I believe President Nixon's reasoning “When the president does it that means it’s not illegal” Was an appropriate statement. The president should not be above the law, because no one is above the law. Although they may be in the nation’s highest office, they must abide by the laws of their nation. If the president does break the law they can always get out of punishment by resigning, and prearrange a pardoning with his predecessor. So basically if what the president does isn’t all that bad, he can still get out of being punished for it. Although if you think about it, Can you actually put the President of the United Sates in prison? I hardly think that will happen. In an article I read on the internet, it said; “even if he [the president] is charged and tried with something after his term ends, whomever is the sitting President at the time will pardon him and use some sort of justification for the act.” This article was entitled “No American President will ever go to prison for actions they undertook as President.”

Anonymous said...

Blog # 14
I don't think it is o.k. for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States because even though the President has most of the authority he has to think about the country and make decisions based on what's better for us. Just because the President doe something doesn't make it illegal, of it it makes it illegal! I do not agree with Nixon's reasoning because laws are made so that every person in the United States has to follow, including the President. It is not right for someone to get special treatment just because they are President.

Danielle M.