Borzou,
Again, thank you for an excellent series of articles.
I believe the debate we are finally having is the one we should have had a long time ago.
I see a major difference between Clinton's and Johnson's impeachment :
The Republicans that voted against the impeachment of Johnson apparently did so because they had doubts about the constitutionality of the law that Johnson had broken. A law that apparently was designed to limit Johnson's presidential powers as defined by the Constitution.
These Senators had the moral courage to state that, no matter what their Political convictions, Presidential powers had to be protected, even if it happened to favor a political opponent.
In Clinton's case, there is no ambiguity whatsoever on the Constitutionality of perjury being defined as a crime. Rather,the only point of contention is wether Clinton's perjuries, in the context of the Paula Jones trial, the Grand Jury testimony, and the Congressional inquiry, if proven, are impeachable crimes.
If proven, I believe that they are, for his status as a felon, or potential felon, will not be compatible with the Presidential duties set forth for him in the Constitution.
|
