Thanks for your reasonable and considered arguments.
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.
Certainly murder is a High Crime by any reasonable person's lights. I think criminally reckless homicide would be as well.
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.
I think that very interesting question illustrates why the standards the Constitution lays out are important, and so useful a guide in coming to a wise conclusion with respect to impeachment.
Drinking too much in and of itself is not a crime, so the question becomes is it a Constitutional "High Misdemeanor". Under some circumstances it could be.
The test the framers had in mind, I think, is whether the conduct constitutes a serious misuse of office, or failure to carry out the duties of office. If the President were so regularly and continually drunk and therefor had not just on some occasion or other, but often, seriously diminished capacity to absorb information and exercise judgment, then yes, it could constitute grounds. But just having some drinks in the evening, without regard to any exact number per se or how often, I think clearly not.
Where do you draw the line? Well, that's where Congressional discretion comes into play, but I would think and hope if would be very far in the direction of inaction.
In other words drinking would have to be pretty darn awful before it could be impeachment grounds. And isn't that how it should be? Should Congress really be going around counting the Presidential wine or whatever glasses?
Actually, we've had several alcoholic Presidents. There was never any serious consideration given to impeaching any of them. I'm not aware of any that couldn't function.
There is a famous story here. Abraham Lincoln was well know for his high personal probity. He was I believe a complete teetotaler as well. After Lincoln had appointed Ulysses S. Grant to one of the two highest posts in the Union Army, commander of the Western Armies, Grant's very heavy and frequent drinking had reached such scandalous proportions, as reported back in Washington, that some in his Cabinet urged the President to consider removing Grant from his post. Lincoln replied: Sir, please tell me what brand of whiskey Grant drinks so that I might send a case to all my other generals.
Grant's leadership of his troops and performance in the field was far exceeding that of Lincoln's other generals, past and current, and was providing the first hopes of eventual Union victory. Grant subsequently became President. One of the alcoholic ones.
Performance in office was the standard Lincoln wisely applied to Grant. And not some moral litmus test.
I do not agree with you here. Sex in the work place is not consensual sex. The President took advantage of a subordinate.
Sex in the work place may or may not be harassment. I think what you have in mind are the private rules which not a few companies have developed for their own protection, and require their employees to follow, in an effort to avoid having the company swept into a sexual harassment allegation. (Since many American's meet unattached members of the opposite sex more frequently through work than any other way, these can be a pretty tough rules if too strictly drawn up.)
Sexual harassment law is a complicated area, subject to all sorts of different interpretations, and some companies simply want a simple and bright line rule that should avoid all possible trouble if adhered to. And the military has done something similar, in its codes of MILITARY justice.
However, under sexual harassment legal decisions there must be some element of coercion for there to be harassment (or a hostile work environment, but that's not the issue you're raising). The boss must coerce the employee by either threatening the loss of a job or job rewards, or by offering special and otherwise not forthcoming job rewards for compliance. As you can imagine all of this can get rather murky. It is very clear, however, that if the sexual relations are wanted and welcomed by both parties, there is no sexual harassment regardless of where the sex occurs, or between whom. (The risk the non-coercive boss takes, of course, is that after a failed romance the subordinate adopts a different view as to how wanted the sex was when it occurred. And who is to disprove her?)
There is a small and radical Feminist fringe that would push to have the law work just as you stated it, based I suppose on psychological considerations (that amount to insisting on "saving" some women from themselves it seems to me), but thankfully, that is not the law now. Most Feminists do not go so far. It's coercion they're after, and the difficulties of proof that really concern them.
Doug |
