Abdul Haq, as I see it, there are just two fundamental positions on the desirablity/undesirability of removing the President from office. They, in turn, rest upon two fundamentally different interpretations of what constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Position One : Even if some or all of the charges brought against the President in the articles of impeachment should prove to be true, the crimes he is charged with do not "rise" (funny word here) to the level of impeachment, because of the context in which they wsere committed. In other words, they were not crimes "against the state."
Position Two. The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Nation. Hence, if he is found guilty of lying under oath and/or perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, etc., he is violating the chief duty and obligation he bears under the Constitution. Hence his "crimes" do undermine the state, since they undermine the office of the Presidency.
I think there is something to be said for both positions.
The basic point at issue between them is not whether the President was deceitful or not. (A supporter of Position #1 could conceivably agree with a supporter of Position #2 on this matter.) What is the basic point at issue is whether his alleged "crimes", if proven, are grave enough to necessitate removing him from the Presidency.
IMO, All the rest of the rhetoric round and about impeachment often prevent us from seeing what the basic issues really are. And I would suggest that much of the rhetoric could be as damaging to the "soul of our country" as anything else you might fear. For example, it is surely "damaging to the soul of our country" when some Americans denounce their fellow-citizens as morally bankrupt idiots, and are charged, in turn, with being intemperate fanatic nitwits, etc.
What do you think happens to civil discourse under these circumstances?
jbe
|
