Algorithmic fairness has emerged as an important consideration when using machine learning to make high-stakes societal decisions. Yet, improved fairness often comes at the expense of model accuracy. While aspects of the fairness-accuracy tradeoff have been studied, most work reports the fairness and accuracy of various models separately; this makes model comparisons nearly impossible without a model-agnostic metric that reflects the balance of the two desiderata. We seek to identify, quantify, and optimize the empirical Pareto frontier of the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. Specifically, we identify and outline the empirical Pareto frontier through Tradeoff-between-Fairness-and-Accuracy (TAF) Curves; we then develop a metric to quantify this Pareto frontier through the weighted area under the TAF Curve which we term the Fairness-Area-Under-the-Curve (FAUC). TAF Curves provide the first empirical, model-agnostic characterization of the Pareto frontier, while FAUC provides the first metric to impartially compare model families on both fairness and accuracy. Both TAF Curves and FAUC can be employed with all group fairness definitions and accuracy measures. Next, we ask: Is it possible to expand the empirical Pareto frontier and thus improve the FAUC for a given collection of fitted models? We answer affirmately by developing a novel fair model stacking framework, FairStacks, that solves a convex program to maximize the accuracy of model ensemble subject to a score-bias constraint. We show that optimizing with FairStacks always expands the empirical Pareto frontier and improves the FAUC; we additionally study other theoretical properties of our proposed approach. Finally, we empirically validate TAF, FAUC, and FairStacks through studies on several real benchmark data sets, showing that FairStacks leads to major improvements in FAUC that outperform existing algorithmic fairness approaches.