dougjn: re: Economist essay:
In the end, yes, it is going to be a vote of confidence. And, if the President were hugely popular, and had a reputation overall as a man of integrity, then he would probably win the vote. But his popularity is a mile wide and an inch thick, and his nickname is "slick Willie". The key point is that the House wouldn't have the opportunity to vote "no confidence", if the President had not broken the law, and behaved in a totally amoral fashion.
Witness tampering, lying to a Grand Jury, and behavior that borders on rape (given the immense disparity in power between him and her): these are crimes. You can't get away from that.
Removing a President for crimes (not just a lack of popularity or effectiveness) is part of the Constitutional process. The fact that it hasn't been used very often doesn't mean it is somehow unconstitutional.
The writers of the Constitution gave very explicit, detailed rules for doing some things. In other areas, they deliberately left it vague, because they wanted future generations to have some freedom of action. And, sometimes, they left it vague because they had a hard time agreeing among themselves at the Constitutional Convention. Their wording on what constitutes an impeachable offense was one of those deliberately vague areas. They intended later generations to have wide latitude in deciding what it meant. Sexual harassment in the workplace, and predatory sexual behavior by powerful men, wasn't an issue in the early 1800s. It is an issue now. It is a Big (with a capital B) issue now. Is it a High crime or misdemeanor? That's up to the House to decide, and they aren't going to use 200-year-old standards. Nor should they.
BTW, you are editing the Constitution. It does not say "High Crime or a High Misdemeanor". You added the second "high", and then put it in bold. It isn't there in the original.
You're right, most other countries don't think this is important, and don't understand why we are making such a big deal about it. Then again, most countries have a shallow or nonexistent tradition of the rule of law, and equality before the law. You are arguing for inequality before the law, saying that he shouldn't be hauled into court for perjury because he is President. You even think that it will be OK to punish him for his crimes as soon as the mantle of power is off his shoulders, but not before.
re: "So require that it be quick, even if one might argue that that is at some cost to due process. " Wait a minute. Aren't you the stickler for the letter of the law, and haven't you been arguing against expediency? Why do you find it acceptable to cut corners here, but not elsewhere? You're not being consistent.
The only way this process will be quick is if the polls and his fellow pols tell Clinton to resign. Who will be the Democratic Goldwater, to go to Clinton and say, "You've lost all support, and have to go, and I mean now"? If someone doesn't do that, this will drag on and on. The House will re-hash everything Starr has done, and then the Senate will do it all over again. There will be endless complications, new details, and Byzantine shuffling of political alliances.
re: "Congress should first entertain and decide a motion by the President's attorneys for summary judgement." If the House hurriedly absolves the President, without fully debating it, in all it's sordid detail, then every working woman in America will understand that their government has just declared Open Hunting Season on them. Sort of like the way Reagan declared Open Hunting Season on unions by firing the air-traffic controllers. I predict a massive feminist backlash, if Congress follows your idea. But it won't happen, because the process is deliberately slow, legalistic, repetitious. That's the way Jefferson and Hamilton wanted it to be.
It's just wishful thinking to hope for a speedy resolution of this issue by Congress. Just looking at the information available now could easily take up the rest of the Presidential term. And, unfortunately, the available evidence is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Do you think this is the only young woman Clinton took advantage of? Do you think this is the only time he broke the rules (the legal, moral, constitutional, personal, public, political, whatever rules)? Do you think this is the only shameful thing he has ever done and covered up? And as those details come out, bit by agonizing bit, how much "intrinsic authority" will be left to him? Starr investigated a broad list of questionable activities, and only called one narrow area "impeachable".
The hunt has just begun, the hounds have just now got the scent of blood.
|
