Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (3874)	9/19/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The very post you cite, which does indeed call for resignation, admits clearly that these are not properly impeachable High Crimes. He makes at bottom the same, and correct, argument which I have: The punishment, moreover, is fitting. Clinton's crimes are not about sex but about deliberately subverting the execution of the laws. However, given the nature of this case, they do not rise to the level of high crimes. They are low crimes. High crimes call for impeachment. Low crimes call for resignation. The error of course is in the last clause. To say that low crimes call for resignation. With the implicit threat that Congress may go ahead and impeach and remove him for office if he doesn't do as we want is a travesty of Constitutional government. Clinton will regain a lot more ability to lead than commonly supposed if he does survive, and the matter is ended. Not completely, of course. He will not be able to lead in areas touching upon personal morality, certainly, such as tolerance for gays, or reform of the military codes of justice. But lead in response to international or economic crisis. Yes. Lead on social security. Yes. And the like. I don't take lightly throwing out our Consitution's standards, merely because we may end up without an ideal result for a couple of years. A parliamentary form of government also has its downsides, and is not our tradition, or the Consitution's blueprint. And we are called on to keep it that way, without an Amendment. Doug