# data[].attributes.body
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

# data[].attributes.body
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court...

# data[].attributes.body
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated...

# data[].attributes.body
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

# data[].attributes.body
Thursday we read through the 1st paragraph of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution identifying the expressed powers and expanding on understanding them and the powers inherent with the role of President based on those powers. Today you will review those powers and then finish looking at and understanding the President's expressed powers.

You will first need to make a copy of this padlet to begin. For each column you will read the Constitution clause and then research online to find either a tweet or news article to provide as an example of that power. You will link to the tweet or article and write a brief explanation of the power and how the President is exercising it.

Commander-in-Chief is done for you as an example. Once you are done you will click on the share button and copy the url to post into the Canvas assignment. This assignment is to be completed individually.

# data[].attributes.body
and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

# data[].attributes.body
...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices

# data[].attributes.body
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

# data[].attributes.body
The President as Commander, has the inherent power to order the military to carry out operations such as shooting down balloons or moving troops around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SURFSIDE BEACH, S.C., Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. military fighter jet shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina on Saturday, a week after it first entered U.S. airspace and triggered a dramatic -- and public -- spying saga that worsened Sino-U.S. relations.

President Joe Biden said he had issued an order on Wednesday to take down the balloon, but the Pentagon had recommended waiting until it could be done over open water to safeguard civilians from debris crashing to Earth from thousands of feet (meters) above commercial air traffic.

"They successfully took it down, and I want to compliment our aviators who did it," Biden said.

Multiple fighter and refueling aircraft were involved in the mission, but only one -- an F-22 fighter jet from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia -- took the shot at 2:39 p.m. (1939 GMT), using a single AIM-9X supersonic, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile, a senior U.S. military official said.

China strongly condemned the military strike on an airship that it says was used for meteorological and other scientific purposes, and which it said had strayed into U.S. airspace "completely accidentally" -- claims flatly dismissed by U.S. officials.

"China had clearly asked the U.S. to handle this properly in a calm, professional and restrained manner," China's foreign ministry said in a statement. "The U.S. had insisted on using force, obviously overreacting."

The balloon was shot down about six nautical miles off the U.S. coast of the Atlantic Ocean, over relatively shallow water, potentially aiding efforts to recover elements of the Chinese surveillance equipment over the coming days, U.S. officials said.

One U.S. military official said the debris field was spread out over seven miles (11 km) of ocean, and multiple U.S. military vessels were on site.

The downing of the balloon came shortly after the U.S. government ordered a halt to flights in and out of three airports in South Carolina -- Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston -- due to what it said at the time was an undisclosed "national security effort." Flights resumed on Saturday afternoon.

While Saturday's shootdown concludes the military dimension to the spying saga, Biden is likely to continue to face intense political scrutiny from Republican opponents in Congress who argue he failed to act quickly enough.

A senior administration official said after shooting down the balloon, the U.S. government spoke directly with China about the action. The State Department also briefed allies and partners around the world, the official said.

Questions remain about how much information China may have gathered during the balloon's trek across the United States.

The balloon entered U.S. airspace in Alaska on Jan. 28 before moving into Canadian airspace on Jan 30. It then re-entered U.S. airspace over northern Idaho on Jan. 31, a U.S. defense official said. Once it crossed over U.S. land, it did not return to open waters, making a shootdown difficult.

U.S. officials did not publicly disclose the balloon's presence over the United States until Thursday.

"It's clear the Biden administration had hoped to hide this national security failure from Congress and the American people," said U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

Biden's emphasis on Saturday that -- days ago -- he ordered the balloon shot down as soon as possible could be an effort to respond to such critics.

Former President Donald Trump, Biden's potential rival in the 2024 election, called earlier this week for the balloon to be shot down, and has sought to portray himself as stronger than Biden on China. The U.S. relationship with China is likely to be a major theme of the 2024 presidential race.

Washington had called the balloon's appearance a "clear violation" of U.S. sovereignty and notified Beijing about the shootdown on Saturday, a U.S. official said.

Still, officials on Saturday appeared to play down the balloon's impact on U.S. national security.

"Our assessment -- and we're going to learn more as we pick up the debris -- was that it was not likely to provide significant additive value over and above other (Chinese) intel capability, such as satellites in low-Earth orbit," the senior U.S. defense official said.

A Reuters photographer who witnessed the shootdown said a stream came from a jet and hit the balloon, but there was no explosion. It then began to fall.

The Pentagon assesses that the balloon was part of a fleet of Chinese spy balloons. On Friday, it said another Chinese balloon was flying over Latin America.

"Over the past several years, Chinese balloons have previously been spotted over countries across five continents, including in East Asia, South Asia and Europe," the U.S. official said.

The suspected spy balloon prompted Secretary of State Antony Blinken to postpone a visit to China this week that had been expected to start on Friday.

The postponement of Blinken's trip, which had been agreed to in November by Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, was a blow to those who saw it as an overdue opportunity to stabilize an increasingly fractious relationship between the two countries.

China is keen for a stable U.S. relationship so it can focus on its economy, battered by the now-abandoned zero-COVID policy and neglected by foreign investors alarmed by what they see as a return of state intervention in the market.

Reporting by Randall Hill in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, and Phil Stewart, Steve Holland, Jeff Mason and David Shepardson in Washington; Additional reporting by Ryan Woo in Beijing; Writing by Phil Stewart and Diane Bartz; Editing by Daniel Wallis, Marguerita Choy, Leslie Adler, Sandra Maler and William Mallard

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Phil Stewart

Thomson Reuters

Phil Stewart has reported from more than 60 countries, including Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and South Sudan. An award-winning Washington-based national security reporter, Phil has appeared on NPR, PBS NewsHour, Fox News and other programs and moderated national security events, including at the Reagan National Defense Forum and the German Marshall Fund. He is a recipient of the Edwin M. Hood Award for Diplomatic Correspondence and the Joe Galloway Award.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. fighter jet shoots down suspected Chinese spy balloon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SURFSIDE BEACH, S.C., Feb 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. military fighter jet shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina on Saturday, a week after it first entered U.S. airspace and triggered a dramatic -- and public -- spying saga that worsened Sino-U.S. relations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Biden admin to send 1,500 troops to southern border for support roles ahead of expected migrant surge

# data[].attributes.body
The president as commander has sent 1,500 troops to the southern border of U.S.- Mexico to migrants crossing the border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden admin to send 1,500 troops to southern border for support roles ahead of expected migrant surge | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Biden administration is making plans to send an additional 1,500 active-duty troops to the US-Mexico border in anticipation of an influx of migrants when the Title 42 public health authority expires next week, sources familiar with the planning told CNN.

# data[].attributes.body
President Clinton delivered his third State of Union to a Republican Congress who he had been in three week long budget stand off.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
-United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1
In the opening line of Article II of the United States Constitution, The President is endowed with the executive power of the nation. During his eight years in office, President Clinton fulfilled his role as Chief Executive through a wide variety of activities. Here, in this module, you can read about some of these activities and the ways in which President Clinton acted as the Chief Executive of the United States.

State of the Union Address
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" -United States Constitution, Article II, Section
Once a year, the President of the United States convenes both chambers of Congress and delivers a speech that addresses various aspects of the nation including the legislative agenda that the President seeks to pursue over the coming year. During President Clinton's time in office, he delivered eight such addresses.

On January 23rd, 1996, President Clinton delivered his third State of the Union to a Republican Congress with which he had been locked in a three-week budget standoff just days earlier. Rather than chastising his rivals, President Clinton took the opportunity afforded him by the State of the Union Address to recognize the importance of balancing the budget and thanked the Republican lawmakers for the "energy and determination" that they brought to the table. President Clinton also raised seven challenges for the nation and Congress to find solutions to over the next year.

These challenges ranged on issues as diverse as finding ways to keep our children safe and defending democracy around the world; improving education and reducing crime; bringing economic prosperity to all Americans and protecting the environment; and finally, building a government that works for the American people. Through this speech, President Clinton, like those who held the office before him, reaffirmed that the "State of the Union is strong" and laid out for the Congress and the American people his policy agenda for the coming year.

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges
"he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court" -United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2
When Supreme Court Justices pass away or retire from their post on the Court, the President of the United States is tasked with nominating their replacement. After nomination, the nominee must be confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate.

In 1993, with the retirement of Justice Byron White, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the seat. To nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Clinton held a small ceremony in the White House Rose Garden and spoke to her suitability to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court, calling her "one of our nation's finest judges, progressive in outlook, wise in judgement, balanced and fair in her opinions." Click here for the full text of his speech.

After her nomination, Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the Senate Judicial Committee who questioned her as to her stance on a variety of constitutional issues such as the death penalty, the constitutional right to privacy, and gender equality. The Senate, satisfied with her responses, approved of President Clinton's nomination by a margin of 96-3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the judicial oath on August 10th, 1993 and served on the Court until her death on September 18th, 2020.

The Executive Cabinet
"he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices" -United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2
The President of the United States does not directly carry out the work of the executive branch; rather, the executive branch is made up of executive departments, each chaired by a Secretary. These Secretaries, when assembled, make up the Executive Cabinet that advises the President on prudent courses of action for matters of state.

In many cases, the matters at hand are directly related to policy and legislation. For example, a cabinet meeting in March of 1993 focused on reforming the student aid system. In the notes sent to Deputy Secretary of Education Madeleine Kunin, we can see how the discussion between President Clinton and his cabinet proceeded.

Other times, the advice given by the executive cabinet can be of grave consequence, as it was when Anthony Lake, the National Security Advisor, penned a memo to President Clinton regarding options for the use of force in reasserting democratic rule in Haiti. In the memo, Anthony Lake details the size of deployment that would be needed, scenarios for the return of the elected President of Haiti, and some threats that American troops would encounter on arrival.
[Return To The Powers of The Presidency Home Page]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 In the opening line of Article II of the United States Constitution, The President is endowed with the executive power of the nation. During his eight years in office, President Clinton fulfilled his role as Chief Executive through a wide variety of activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Let's Make A Deal: Examining The Chile-U.S. Tax Treaty

# data[].attributes.body
On June 22 the U.S. Senate voted to approve the tax treaty between the United States and Chile after a decade long delay. They first signed in 2010 and mid 2023 passed this treaty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two diplomats from the United States and Chile extending their hands for a handshake on an agreement ... [+]
getty

Tax Notes reporters Cady Stanton and Michael Smith discuss the recently passed Chile-U.S. tax treaty and the importance of tax treaties on both a national and international scale.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: It's been a while.

On June 22 the U.S. Senate voted to approve the tax treaty between the United States and Chile after a decade-long delay. First signed in 2010, the treaty has struggled to make its way through Congress, but this long-awaited approval may set the stage for the passage of other pending treaties.

So what can we expect from the treaty process in the future and why are tax treaties so important? Tax Notes Capitol Hill reporter Cady Stanton and Tax Notes legal reporter Michael Smith will talk more about. Cady, Michael, welcome to the podcast.

Cady Stanton: Thanks for having me.

Michael Smith: Thanks for having me.

David D. Stewart: So Cady, could you give us some background on why it took so long for the U.S.-Chile treaty to pass through Congress?

Cady Stanton: Starting off with a brief timeline, the U.S. and Chile initially signed a tax treaty in February of 2010. The treaty first came up for consideration in the Senate in 2012 but had been languishing in the chamber for over a decade because of one senator, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Paul has long opposed the way the U.S. goes about treaties with other countries, particularly on how they address taxpayer privacy. He's constantly taken issue with these agreements because of concerns he has that they could allow other countries' tax bureaus the ability to access information on U.S. citizens.

When I spoke to Senator Paul about the Chile tax treaty and why he had opposed it for so long, he said he had the same complaints he's had about tax treaties for more than 10 years. His pushback to the Chile tax treaty has more to do with our treaty process in general than it does with our relationship with that country in particular.

The treaty made progress this month due in part because of Chile's position as one of the world's leading producers of lithium, a critical mineral component in emerging technologies, including rechargeable batteries for things like phones, laptops, and electric vehicles.

David D. Stewart: Now, what is the more general process for a treaty to get through Congress?

Cady Stanton: Something that's important to note when we're talking about the treaty process in the U.S. federal government is that the Senate doesn't technically ratify treaties. Rather, it takes up a resolution of ratification, formally approving of and consenting to those treaties that are negotiated by the executive branch with other countries.

When the full Senate votes to approve that resolution, the president is then allowed to proceed with fully ratifying the treaty. So once the two countries signed the Chile-U.S. tax treaty, the president submitted it to the Senate for consideration for that resolution and first, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered and voted on the treaty before reporting it to the full Senate.

Fun fact, the committee actually voted to approve the resolution four times across multiple congressional sessions before it finally got to a floor vote this month. Once the committee voted to approve of the resolution by a vote of 20 to 1, that one vote being Rand Paul on June 1, the full Senate then voted 95 to 2 to approve of the treaty on June 22.

David D. Stewart: How was Rand Paul as one senator holding up this treaty for the last decade?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 18: Ranking Member Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks during a Senate Homeland Security ... [+]
Getty Images

Cady Stanton: In order for these treaty resolution approvals to fully pass, the Senate needs a two-thirds supermajority to get it through full passage. And Rand Paul's objection, related to taxpayer privacy, was also getting the interest of some other Republican senators until [the treaty] gained so much support and so much pressure because of the impact over 12 years on U.S. citizens in Chile and being under double taxation. Eventually the tide of opinion about the treaty led to having a supermajority despite his single opposition.

Rand Paul intended to introduce an amendment around taxpayer privacy for this treaty, but in the end, conceded, and himself and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri were the only senators to vote against the treaty in the final vote.

David D. Stewart: OK. What sort of things are in this treaty?

Cady Stanton: The final text of the treaty includes two reservations. One on the U.S. tax on base erosion payments of corporations with substantial gross receipts, and one on relief from double taxation.

But it's also important to talk about how the treaty includes a declaration on the need for future tax treaties to reflect changes made to international tax provisions as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. That was something that had held up the treaty more recently in the past few weeks and months.

Once President Biden proceeds with ratification, which he's expected to do, Chile would become the third Latin American country with [a] double tax treaty with the United States, along with Mexico and Venezuela.

David D. Stewart: Now I know there are other treaties out there and other agreements. What's still out there that needs to be taken up by the Senate?

Cady Stanton: The next treaty the committee is likely to consider is actually a really interesting one because it's not really fully a treaty. It would be a tax agreement with Taiwan. The Senate is working on a tax agreement, which is similar to a tax treaty, because the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

There's some really complicated politics at play because a tax agreement with Taiwan could definitely heighten tensions with China, which sees Taiwan as part of its territory and has undermined Taiwan's efforts towards independence.

But top taxwriters in the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees from both parties have all issued statements in support of a tax agreement with Taiwan. So the desire for a formal agreement is apparent, but while the common goal is clear, the logistics of how to finalize it are yet to be ironed out.

David D. Stewart: Is there any sense of when this might come up for a vote and is there a potential tide the way that Chile had to get it over that hurdle?

Cady Stanton: Absolutely. Given there's bipartisan and bicameral support for a tax agreement with Taiwan, it seems to be a pretty top priority in terms of treaties and agreements for the Senate [Foreign] Relations Committee. But the Taiwan tax agreement has been on the agenda for that committee for its business meetings multiple times in recent weeks and has been either delayed or rescheduled week after week without much explanation.

It's hard to say when the delicate politics of the agreement might find a resolution, and the agreement might not come up for a vote in the committee or the full Senate for weeks or months, depending on how long sorting through those politics might take.

David D. Stewart: OK. Now Michael, Cady was talking a bit about these reservations to the Chile treaty. Could you tell us about what those mean for the implementation?

Michael Smith: Yeah, thanks, Dave. The reservations have to get sent back to Chile and then be approved by the Chilean Congress on their own afterwards. Historically, reservations haven't really had the best track record. I think the last set of reservations we had was with Italy in 1999 when President Clinton signed it. That languished around for about a decade before it finally got passed through the Italian congress. It was also subject to two different sets of diplomatic notes before they finally implemented it.

Imposing Seat of Santiago of the National Congress of Chile, in the center of Santiago de Chile, the ... [+]
getty

David D. Stewart: OK. So is it possible that this would then have to bounce back and forth or is it just, this is what we have?

Michael Smith: It really depends how that negotiation goes between the United States and Chile. There's a lot of speculation that these reservations are going to go through pretty quickly. The reservations for BEAT [base erosion and antiabuse tax] and relief from double taxation are just adjustments from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They're fairly straightforward in that sense.

Also, Chile has been providing some forms of tax relief for U.S. investors for the past several years in this instance. They've been providing relief for U.S. investors in the area and that just had to be re-upped every couple years.

So a lot of people are expecting this to pass through pretty quickly because that level of stability between the countries is important.

David D. Stewart: All right. Now, I understand that the U.S. maintains these model tax treaties that get updated periodically. What sort of new features will we find in this treaty?

Michael Smith: Yeah, in 2016, the U.S. put out its 2016 model tax treaty. It had a couple different changes to stop different forms of treaty shopping that the country believed was happening around that time.

One of the big ones was article 22 on the limitation on benefits to try and avoid these types of treaty shopping because it changed it from income "derived from a business" to "emanates from a business."

This allowed some forms of aggregation to track and verify where income was coming from other countries and avoid different organizations using permanent establishments and profit shifting in order to avoid taxation and essentially have double nontaxation.

David D. Stewart: What other pending treaties are you watching out for and are there any unique issues to be watching for?

Michael Smith: One of the interesting treaties coming up is Croatia. The U.S. signed a treaty with Croatia this last December, and it includes one of the reservations that's in the Chile treaty. It includes the reservation to preserve BEAT.

It's interesting to see how that moves forward because it will give us more glimpses into how the U.S. is going to model its treaty negotiations moving forward, into whether these two reservations are going to become baseline policy for treaty negotiations moving forward.

There's also several treaties that are in negotiation stages right now. Israel and Switzerland are two examples that we originally believed were going to be just protocols, but Treasury recently indicated that they're going to need a new treaty with Israel.

It was originally signed in 1975 with amending protocols in the early '80s and early '90s. A lot of the treaty doesn't reflect the changes in internationalization and how interconnected the world has [become] in that sense. So there's a lot of updates that are needed for the treaty to include these kind[s] of aspects.

So that's a new avenue to see where Treasury and where the United States goes with their treaty negotiations as well. I think those are interesting to look forward to to see how exactly all of this plays out and where those reservations come in or the model treaty comes in for these kind[s] of negotiations.

David D. Stewart: All right, so taking a bigger-picture view here about the idea of a tax treaty to begin with: What is the importance of a tax treaty at both the national and international scale?

Michael Smith: Money talks. Trade agreements are a big deal, but taxes are the underpinning for a lot of these kinds of trade. Tax agreements are able to create incentives for companies to trade both internally and internationally in these instances, and in this situation, it's for getting these kinds of productions of resources that the United States needs and this kind of cooperation on larger matters.

Agreement to a tax treaty can mean just agreement for those single interactions, but it also develops a level of agreement between countries that shows willingness to continue operations between not just the countries, but also companies in those regions as well.

David D. Stewart: All right. These treaties have been held up and we haven't seen a new one in over a decade. What is the consequence of these treaties just not being ratified by the United States?

Michael Smith: The treaties can have large consequences. I think that a lot of the tax credits that we've seen for things like electric vehicles are also a way to combat our inability to get these kinds of resources. Chile, for example, has the world's largest reserve of lithium and [is the] second-largest producer. They recently went through a process to up their production in order to start exporting even more lithium.

I think the electric vehicle movement and a lot of clean energy movements have been greatly hindered by the inability to create these kinds of treaties throughout the world and specifically with the United States. I think that our production and ability to get these resources has been greatly hindered by our inability to have treaties with varying countries.

The delays in treaties also have large implications for individuals and corporations at large with the recent changes to the 2022 foreign tax credit regulations. They changed the sourcing rules for another country to be sufficiently similar to the U.S. tax rules.

In which case, it means that the sourcing rules have to follow the place-of-use standard rather than a residency-based standard. Residency-based standards are typically what's used in the rest of the world, and the United States kind of has its own special place with a place-of-use standard. This changed the tax treatment of a lot of different payments that companies were making.

Originally they were getting a one-for-one tax credit for the taxes they were paying in other countries. And under the new sourcing rules, these would be disallowed in some instances.

While Treasury has provided so much needed relief in this area, it's been more problematic because treaties operate as a primary means of backstopping from double taxation in these areas. Without a tax treaty, that means taxpayers have to go through the rigmarole of going through the foreign tax credit evaluation and going through all of the associated paperwork that's involved in that kind of area.

This causes a lot of unnecessary work or unneeded work when we could just have tax treaties that provide a primary method of relief for taxpayers in this area.

David D. Stewart: Well, all right, now, this being the first treaty that has been approved since this podcast began, I hope that potentially we can have more discussions of future treaties. Cady, Michael, thanks for being here.

Cady Stanton: Thanks for having me.

Michael Smith: Thanks for having me, Dave.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Make A Deal: Examining The Chile-U.S. Tax Treaty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tax Notes reporters Cady Stanton and Michael Smith discuss the recently passed Chile-U.S. tax treaty and the importance of tax treaties on both a national and international scale.

# data[].attributes.body
The pardoning of Richard Nixon after he and his aides had engaged in illegal activities during his 1972 reelection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Gerald Ford Announces His Decision to Pardon President Nixon

(White House photograph A0627-09)

On Sunday, September 8, 1974, President Ford addressed the nation from the Oval Office to announce his decision to "grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed." President Ford noted in his remarks that the pardon reflected both his Presidential responsibilities and his personal beliefs. Shortly after the announcement former President Nixon released a statement accepting the pardon. Although such a statement wasn't required President Ford felt it was very significant. By resigning and accepting the pardon, Nixon was publicly acknowledging his guilt in the Watergate cover up.

The public's reaction to the announcement, however, quickly proved that the pardon had not settled matters as President Ford had intended. The most immediate consequence was the resignation of White House Press Secretary Jerald terHorst shortly before the announcement was made. The President had told him of the decision only the day before and terHorst felt he could not support it. The White House received thousands of letters, telegrams, and messages in the days following the pardon announcement. Reactions ranged from outrage to support. Government officials, celebrities, and citizens from around the country all weighed in with their opinions. Many felt that the pardon continuined the Watergate coverup by preventing the possible indictment of the former President that could have provided answers to lingering questions. Among the overwhelming negative responses from the public was the idea that the pardon was part of a "secret deal" between Ford and Nixon.

Several Representatives requested answers to specific questions regarding the pardon and the circumstances surrounding it. On October 17, 1974, President Ford appeared on Capitol Hill before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice (Hungate Committee), becoming the first sitting President to give sworn congressional testimony. He delivered an opening statement and answered questions posed by the committee members regarding when and with whom he had discussed the pardon, and why he decided to grant it.

Over time people began to reconsider President Ford's action. He received particularly special recognition when Caroline Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy presented him with the John F. Kennedy Foundation's Profiles in Courage Award on May 21, 2001. This award is given annually to an elected official who has withstood strong opposition to follow what she or he believes is the right course of action. Ford was honored for the way he put the country's best interests ahead of his own political career in a decision that most likely contributed to his defeat in the 1976 election. "I was one of those who spoke out against his action then," Senator Kennedy said at the presentation. "But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement."

Digitized Holdings on the Nixon Pardon

Documents:

White House Press Releases Related to President Nixon (including the pardon), August 9, 1974 - July 8, 1976

Memo from Leonard Garment to Philip Buchen Regarding Consideration of a Pardon, August 28, 1974

Original Nixon Pardon, September 8, 1974 (in the holdings of the National Archives)

Ceremonial Copy of Nixon Pardon, September 8, 1974

Reading Copy of President Ford's Pardon Message, September 8, 1974

President Ford's Daily Diary, September 8, 1974

Press Secretary Gerald terHorst resignation letters, September 8, 1974:

Benton Becker's Memo on the History and Background of the Nixon Pardon, September 9, 1974

Memo for President Ford Regarding Pardon Reaction from Senators Packwood, Thurmon, and Cook, September 10, 1974

H. Res. 1367 with Annotations by President Ford, September 16, 1974

Letter to President Ford from Representative William L. Hungate (Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice), September 17, 1974

Note from President Ford and Excerpt of Rev. Duncan Littlefair's Sermon on the Nixon Pardon September 18, 1974

Mail Received in the Mail Room for the Period Ending September 20, 1974 (includes the pardon), September 20, 1974

List of Responses Regarding Ford's Decision to Appear Before Hungate Committee September 30, 1974

Form Letter in Response to Letters Against the Pardon October 1974

Correspondence Between President Ford and Rep. Charles Sandman Regarding Ford's Appearance Before the Hungate Committee October 4, 1974

Draft Narrative Response to H. Res. 1367 with Ford's Annotations, October 12, 1974

Sample Reaction Letters:

Memo to President Ford Regarding Major Issues Drawing Presidential Mail (including Nixon Pardon), January 6, 1977

Remarks by Gerald Ford Upon Receiving the Profile in Courage Award, John F. Kennedy Library, May 21, 2001

Digitized Collections for Additional Research:

Photographs:
White House Communications Agency Audio Recordings:

Remarks of the President Gerald R. Ford from a Film Clip Announcing the Pardon, WAV or MP3

Tape A (Part 1 of 2). President Gerald R. Ford Remarks at Hungate Subcommittee Hearing on Nixon Pardon, WAV or MP3

Tape A (Part 2 of 2). President Gerald R. Ford remarks at Hungate Subcommittee Hearing on Nixon Pardon, WAV or MP3

Tape B. President Gerald R. Ford remarks at Hungate Subcommittee hearing on Nixon Pardon, WAV or MP3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Gerald Ford Announces His Decision to Pardon President Nixon (White House photograph A0627-09) On Sunday, September 8, 1974, President Ford addressed the nation from the Oval Office to announce his decision to "grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
President Lyndon B. Johnson talking on the phone in the Oval Office, November29, 1963.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the President does not have the power to pass laws, he can suggest laws to Congress. He can also work with individual Congressmen to pass the bills that he has suggested.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
President William J. Clinton signing House Resolution

# data[].attributes.body
Gore watching President Clinton who is given the power to approve or veto laws that are passed by Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice, President George Buss nominated him in 1991.