>>I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Then open your eyes and your mind will follow.
December 30, 1998
Making Criminals of Us All
By RICHARD DOOLING
OMAHA -- Feet stomp. Fists pound. Fingers point.
But whom should we blame for our popular President's unpopular impeachment
and impending Senate trial? Mr. Clinton and the Democrats blame Kenneth Starr
and the Republicans, who in turn blame the President and the Democrats, who
blame Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Lucianne Goldberg, Paula Jones, her
lawyers or a host of others.
But the root of the scandal lies elsewhere: in the surfeit of intrusive laws that would
make criminals of almost anyone the Government decides to investigate. When
Kenneth Starr, a by-the-book prosecutor, wound up his presentation before the
House Judiciary Committee with a paean to his calling in life as a "Man of the
Law," he spoke the truth.
Were it not for the independent counsel statute and expanded interpretations of the
sexual harassment laws, Mr. Starr would have had no authority to interrogate the
President about his private sexual behavior.
If Mr. Starr were sent back in a time capsule to 1962, he could have done nothing
about President Kennedy's sexual indiscretions: independent prosecutors and
lawyers trained to imagine new sexual harassment theories had not been invented
yet.
Without these laws run amok, the scandal that has gripped the nation for the last
year, and the constitutional crisis it created, would be the stuff of an Orwell novel.
At what point do the evils of intrusive, well-meaning laws outweigh their benefits?
When does a law's reach exceed its grasp? Answer: Now. Any male supervisor
who has consensual sex with another employee in any American workplace could
be sued and deposed in the way Mr. Clinton was.
Thanks to ever-expanding theories about what constitutes harassment, even
private, consensual sex is fair game for questioning.
What if, instead of punishing women who decline his unwanted advances, a
powerful male employer simply rewards women who do consent to have sex with
him? Does that violate Title VII sexual harassment laws? Probably.
Let's question him under oath about his sexual relationships and let the jury decide.
If he lies about sex to protect his family, it's perjury.
If we are to be a nation of laws and not men, then perhaps we should pause before
we attack yet another social malady or human weakness by passing yet another
unenforceable law.
Otherwise, it's a matter of selective enforcement, and anybody who can't afford to
hire Johnnie Cochran or David Kendall will pay the price.
Ulysses S. Grant once said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or
obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." The nation has witnessed
the merciless, stringent execution of its sexual harassment laws on President
Clinton. Should we remove him from office or repeal the odious laws? It should be
one or the other. If we let him off the hook but keep the laws on the books, then
the Greek statesman Solon was right when he said, "Laws are like spiders' webs
which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break
through and escape."
Should we remove him from office or repeal the odious laws? It should be
one or the other.
Actually, the best answer is BOTH. |
