Anyone recall '70's codification of laws. One Nixonian, one not?

[Festivito]

I recall,
mid to late seventies,
attempt to codify voluminous books of law into a single book of law.

PROBLEM,
Republicans wanted the President to be ABOVE THE LAW.

SO,
Two codification bills were presented,
one with the president above the law,
the other without it.

The above-the-law bill did not pass.
Cannot recall if the other passed. (Forgive me, I was studying Engineering, not poly sci.)
I think it was dropped.

INTEREST,
It's another pointed example of our country not wanting a king president above the law.

[onenote]

1. I would think I'd remember this, and I don't

onenote

[Festivito]

3. '75, 6, 7 I embroiled myself in heavy politics.. had to be then...

Thanks for the thought power.
I do recall this well. It was quite the power coup of its day.

This current push is the neo-con method of putting this through.
They've been after this kind of power for a long time.

[GrumpyGreg]

2. I remember nothing about that but I hope someone here can help.

[onenote]

4. The more I think about, it less likely this seems

The Democrats controlled Congress throughout Nixon's presidency, by significant margins.
(In the Senate, the Democrats had a low of 54 and a high of 57 during Nixon's term; in the House, the range was 242 to 255).

onenote

[Festivito]

5. But, party loyalty back then was not important on issues, as it is now.

Remember, Clinton barely passed his jobs bill. Dems did not want to support him. Upstart who got in since Ross Perot stole votes from BushGHW. Back further, it was backroom dealing on a more personal level.

Now, they all depend on national funding and are extorted by it as well.

[onenote]

6. that wouldn't explain giving Nixon greatly enhanced power

In addition, if there had been such an attempt, you would think someone would remember it. I'm not suggesting anything sinister on your part, but probably just a faulty memory.

onenote

[Festivito]

7. It was snuck into a large bill. Someone found it. Then it was detracted...

.. detracted only by someone else creating a separate bill, deleting the offensive proposed law.

Dems did their job. The initial sneak was probably somewhat nefarious, albeit defendable and thusly unprovable. It was defeated.

And, it was not for Nixon per se. He was either out or clearly on his way out. It was either well intended, or it was to be a talking point to alleviate the post Watergate Republican losses by being able to say that what Nixon did would now be legal.

Those two bills did arise.

Thanks for the responses onenote.