Michael.. II Reply to: what behavior would it take for you to impeach the President? some thoughts on Morals, Privacy and Public Trust
------
Morals and Public trust:
The President, while expected to, is not elected to be the moral leader. One could argue the contrary, that we expect extreme moral flexibility of our Presidents because we live in a world of immoral acts to which our national response through the President's consideration won't always be "the right thing to do."
We have and will continue to act in our national interest which of necessity sometimes results in our being immoral to peoples of other nations. We commit people to death and take property in the name of self defense and eminent domain, though we call it defending our allies or enforcing our right to world resources. History finds truth has many faces when we look back on our actions.
We don't, as a nation, respect all the opinions of international bodies... nor do we hold our Presidents subject to these bodies' opinions of justice. Consider Amnesty International and the United Nations, the opinions of other country's governing bodies, and religious organizations.
Our 'rule of law' has varied with expediency and has never been absolute, let alone constant. Internally we continue to argue the death penalty, right to abortion, states rights, right to suicide and thousands of other considerations that live in indecision.
We don't, in my opinion, elect a President to be a family man, a church attending person, a religious person or a model citizen. We can and will elect another President in due course if his behavior offends us... our rights in this respect are absolute.
A President is not above the law, nor is a President beneath the law, thus every President is due the respect of a private life, no matter how his moral standards may differ from yours and mine. Indeed, protecting a President's right to privacy enforces our rights to privacy and moral self determination. We may not have friends at the end of the day, but we remain citizens in a free country.
Had the framers of the constitution wanted clerics, celibates, or loyal spouses to run the government they would have provided for it. Had they wanted a litmus test of morality they would have made one.
They did provide that a President could be impeached for crimes other than felonies as considered by Congress and presented to the Senate. They realized all behavior could not be predicted and that in extreme cases impeachment might be the only remedy.
In my opinion, there has been considerable but perhaps not sufficient remedy. The President has had his private life exposed to international examination and embarrassment (.. an interesting word).
His efforts to disguise his actions have failed and in the process left him open to civil prosecution following office. I also feel that none of these acts, currently in consideration, were taken with the intent to harm the American people and do not rise to the level of impeachment.
Therefore, as I previously argued, an impeachment for this would be acting against the structure which protects the will of the people which remains on the side of the President retaining office. It is a matter of sufficient cause in the real world where any and every breach of law is not equal to the worst breach of law. In my opinion, the level and cause of charges currently against Clinton, do not warrant disrupting the continuity of the elective process.
....
The problems facing this nation and the world have not diminished, indeed they've escalated while we divide ourselves. We need to get real work done. Clinton, despite his sexual pursuits and despite our escalated focus on politics and morals, can do an adequate if not better job than before until the next election. |
