As questions swirl around the powers granted to the nation’s chief executive and the Supreme Court’s decision regarding presidential immunity, the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies welcomed patrons and guests to its Presidents Day Celebration on February 18.
The center’s Scholar-in-Residence, Nicole Hemmer, led the discussion on presidential accountability at the L. William Seidman Center on the Pew Grand Rapids Campus.
Hemmer, associate professor of history and director of the Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Center for the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University, said the 1970s were the high-water mark for presidential oversight.
The civil rights and Vietnam War protests of the 1960s and the growing secrecy surrounding the Cold War fostered mistrust of public officials that lingered into the 1970s. The resignation of President Richard Nixon due to the Watergate scandal, coupled with the earlier resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, created “a historical juncture,” said Hemmer.
“Something had shifted in American political culture, a window of opportunity for accountability that has not been repeated since,” Hemmer said. “This accountability did not stop with Nixon’s resignation. The 1970s were in some ways defined by accountability.”
Several legislative measures followed that limited the president’s power — the War Powers Act, the Impoundment Act, the Ethics in Government Act, the Presidential Records Act and an expansion of the Freedom of Information Act.
Despite Congress’ work, there were some limits to accountability in this age of reform, Hemmer said.
“Since we're in the home of Gerald Ford, I have to mention it: the pardon of Richard Nixon,” Hemmer said. “As Ford said, ‘Ugly passions would again be aroused,” if Nixon were to face a trial.
“Ford believed Americans would again be polarized in their opinions, and the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.”
A few years later, the 1982 Supreme Court case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald sided with the former president, ruling that the executive branch was immune from civil lawsuits for its official actions.
“That leaves us with a remarkable lesson from the Nixon administration,” Hemmer said. “Americans still had high expectations of presidents and could still be shocked by lawlessness at the highest levels of government.”
Closing her presentation, Hemmer reminded the audience of the Hauenstein Center’s programming theme this year — E Pluribus Unum; from many, one.
“What binds us? What makes us one is our shared commitment to our form of government and the idea that no person is above the law,” Hemmer said. “As our country struggles through a period of division and anxiety, that common thread is one worth rededicating ourselves to.”
