Fifty years ago this week, Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, and it might not have happened—at least not when it did—without the Constitution’s 25th Amendment and its vice presidential replacement procedure. That procedure allowed Nixon to appoint fellow Republican Gerald Ford to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency eight months prior. It ensured that Nixon’s resignation would result in Ford taking over the White House, instead of the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, the next official in the line of succession.
The prospect of a change in party control could have impacted Nixon’s decision to resign. It also could have altered the assessments of the Republican lawmakers and members of the public who turned on Nixon as his ties to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate Building headquarters were exposed. Even many congressional Democrats were hesitant to pursue Nixon’s removal when there was a vacancy in the vice presidency. They worried about the perception of stealing the White House. At the very least, the guarantee that partisan control would not shift helped minimize disruption and division at a tumultuous time for the nation.
The 25th Amendment’s role in moving the nation beyond the Watergate scandal by providing for a smooth transition of power is often overlooked. Framed in response to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the amendment had been ratified only six years before Nixon used it to nominate Ford. A major impetus for the amendment’s drafting was the need for procedures to declare presidential inabilities. Yet, the amendment saw its first—and most consequential use—through the Ford appointment.
The story of the amendment’s use then is more than a historical footnote. The way members of Congress acted in considering Ford’s nomination is an example of elevating the country’s interests over partisanship. The patriotism they showed is what makes the 25th Amendment and other constitutional provisions work.
Ford never would have been in place to succeed Nixon if Congress had put politics first. The vice presidential replacement procedure in the 25th Amendment’s Section 2 requires approval from majorities of both houses of Congress. When Nixon nominated Ford to fill the vacancy created by Spiro Agnew’s 1973 resignation amid a bribery scandal, Democrats dominated Congress. But they did not use their power to block Ford’s nomination—even though doing so would have kept their leader in the House, Speaker Carl Albert (D-Okla.), next in line to the presidency.
The stakes were clear. Before Nixon even announced Ford as his nominee, 30-year-old Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) observed, “The man whom we are going to confirm as the vice president of the United States may very well be the next president within the next three years.” That possibility soon grew more likely. Less than two weeks after the nomination, Nixon fired the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. The Saturday Night Massacre prompted increased demands for his impeachment or resignation.
Still, lawmakers stayed true to the 25th Amendment’s spirit. The vice presidential replacement procedure was built on the assumption that government officials would act in good faith and with a sense of “constitutional morality.” The same is true of the 25th Amendment’s procedures for declaring presidential inabilities, which have been pulled into the partisan fray in recent years.
Congressional committee reports issued during the 25th Amendment’s development observed, “No mechanical or procedural solution will provide a complete answer if one assumes hypothetical cases in which most of the parties are rogues and in which no popular sense of constitutional propriety exists.” The amendment’s procedures were predicated on the belief that “reasonable” people would always be at the “highest level of government.”
While handling the Ford nomination, lawmakers sought the guidance of Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), the 25th Amendment’s principal author. Bayh testified that honesty, integrity and an ability to “work harmoniously with the president” were vital traits for vice presidential nominees. Whether lawmakers agreed with a nominee’s policy views should not matter, Bayh said.
This approach was embraced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), whose committee would oversee the Nixon impeachment inquiry in the following year. When he opened Ford’s confirmation hearing he said, “I am hopeful that these hearings can produce a new sense of trust in the essential decency of our nation and in its ability to meet the challenges to its government’s integrity.”
Albert, who was next in line to the presidency for as long as the vice president’s office remained vacant, supported Ford’s expeditious confirmation. He thought a flip in partisan control of the White House would have been inappropriate. There are even indications that Albert considered resigning as Speaker to allow the House to put Ford, who was the House minority leader, next in line for the presidency by electing him Speaker.
Two months after his nomination, both houses of Congress confirmed Ford by wide margins: 92 to 3 in the Senate and 387 to 35 in the House. On Dec. 8, 1973, Ford assumed the vice presidency. “For the first time we have carried out the command of the 25th Amendment,” Ford said following his confirmation. “We have demonstrated to the world that our great republic stands solid, stands strong upon the bedrock of the Constitution.”
Less than a year later, in August 1974, Ford became president following Nixon’s resignation pursuant to the 25th Amendment’s Section 1. Ford subsequently used Section 2 to nominate New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the resulting vacancy in the vice presidency.
After taking the oath of office as president, Ford declared, “Our Constitution works.” He was right—but only because its procedures were used according to their design. Partisanship is inherent in how the government operates. It is not always a bad thing. But, as the 25th Amendment’s Watergate era uses emphasize, politics must sometimes be put aside.
John Feerick is the former dean of Fordham Law School and played a key role in the 25th Amendment’s framing. John Rogan is a senior fellow at Fordham Law.