>>A Constitutional discussion of the current crisis. A rather considered one, I hope.<<
Yes, a well considered post. I have no Constitutional expertise. I do not consider myself from the far right or left and I am not a "Clinton hater" unless a "Clinton hater" is anyone who would like to see him out of office as seems to be indicated by Clinton supporters.
I argue that Clinton should not be in office. If his crimes do not meet the Constitutional definition of impeachment then he should resign.
We hear comparisons to the military codes of justice, and are told that if military officers can be and are thrown out of office for adultery, or sex with a subordinate, then surely the commander in chief should be held to no lower a standard.
The problem with both these lines of reasoning, and many others like them, is the little matter of our Constitution. It disagrees. And it is law that controls this case. (Perhaps the military codes of justice should also be somewhat adjusted, but that is another topic.)
OK, he is off on a technicality here. It does make a good case for resignation however. I rarely hear the argument that Clinton must follow military law. It should be noted that just about anyone else in a high position would lose their job given Clinton's circumstances. I do not believe it was ever the intent of the framers to create a privileged class.
Drunken driving for example, no matter how reprehensible, is not a High Crime, and is not an impeachable offense.
OK, and if he were to kill someone ( a logical extrapolation )I am sure that is not impeachable either nor would carrying around a loaded handgun while drunk.
What about the DRUNK part? For the average American citizen one might argue being drunk is a minor offence. IMO a drunk President is a serious matter and should be grounds for removal from office. The argument falls along the lines of a designated driver. Someone has to be responsible for those who chose to diminish their capacity. How many drinks do you suggest the President may have? two? three? four? five? What if he were to drink every day? Would you consider that a problem? Would it be a Constitutional problem or would it be reckless behavior that diminishes the capacity of the US. Perhaps the framers left "wiggle room" for common sense.
politically damaging, but legal, adulterous affair...
involved only consensual sexual activity
I do not agree with you here. Sex in the work place is not consensual sex. The President took advantage of a subordinate. Clear and simple, no wiggle room here. Paula Jones is also a clear case of sexual harassment between non consenting adults. Feminists have lost their credibility on this issue.
No one can argue that the Presidents behavior did not result in serious consequences. One need only open their eyes and look around as we are now experiencing the direct results of his actions. Anyone that believes that this type of reckless behavior in 1998 would not result in our current preoccupation is either naive or in denial. Also, one can not argue that the President has not seriously diminished his own capacity to lead. This is not a *minor* issue at all. One can argue that the illegal acts are minor if compared to those of ordinary citizens. The President is extended privileges and exceptions beyond ordinary citizens and is treated differently. A serious crime for you and I is not a serious crime if committed by the President. BUT, the other side of the coin is also true, a minor crime by you or I can be serious if committed by the President. That is why IMO the framers were not more specific in the impeachment clause. Legal technicalities and the impeachment process do not work together IMO.
The President needs to turn this thing around. He needs to put this situation behind us ASAP. He can clean his own house. He can call off the hounds. He can drop the "legally accurate" bologna. He can agree that his actions are detrimental to the US through his actions ie Cargill and the gang are out ASAP. OR he should resign.
Zeuspaul |
