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: j_b who wrote (7757)	10/7/1998 6:56:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Well, actually, Bill did not commit sodomy (anal intercourse), but oral sex, which also is still illegal in a number of states, as is adultery, masturbation, fornication, etc. Which brings us to an interesting (and relevant) discussion of the difference between "formal law" and "substantive" law. I copied out the following passage from something I was reading the other day, but unfortunately did not preserve the URL (so I don't remember the source). Many laws— perhaps most laws—are not enforced. Formal law, law as it exists on the books, is very different from substantive law, law as it is actually enforced. The breach of some laws engenders widespread moral outrage, while the enforcement of other laws incurs that same public wrath. "It's the law" can never be an excuse for sanctioning an act, because "the law" is a hodge-podge of archaic long-forgotten, and ignored statutes that are never executed, along with those that are respected and daily enforced. Masturbation is illegal in a number of states (Pennsylvania, for instance), and in Indiana and Wyoming, it is criminal to encourage a person to masturbate. In forty-five states, adultery is illegal; Connecticut calls for five-year imprisonment upon prosecution. Mere fornication is a crime in thirty-eight states, and a breach of this law theoretically carries a fine of $500 or two-years imprisonment, or both. Many states dictate the manner in which one may make love to one's spouse; cunnilingus and fellatio, for instance, are against the law in many legal jurisdictions. In view of the near-universality of masturbation among men and the fact that a majority of all couples marrying today engaged in premarital intercourse, the virtual absence of any prosecution for these crimes is remarkable. Although sanctioning all crimes without victims entails severe problems of logistical detection, with adultery at least, divorce suits constitute a fertile field. In New York state, where until recently adultery was the only legitimate grounds for divorce, thousands of divorces have been filed and granted in the past few years, yet almost no one is ever prosecuted for this crime. The enforcement of certain laws, therefore, cannot be taken for granted. Enforcement is problematic. Thus, when a law is enforced, it is necessary to ask why. What is it that differentiates those laws that are enforced and those that are not enforced?....

To: j_b who wrote (7757)	10/7/1998 7:08:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

I wouldn't normally cross-post, but I haven't seen any comments yet on the other thread - thought I'd try it here. An interesting article/editorial was in yesterday's Investor's Business Daily regarding whether perjury would qualify as a high crime etc. It was written by Steve Chabot, a Republican Congressman (obviously an unbiased source <g>). Here is the meat of the piece: The U.S. Court of Appeals expressed similar sentiments in United States v. Manfredonia, stating, "It is for the wrong done to the courts and the administration of justice that punishment is given, not for the effect that any particular testimony might have on the outcome of any given trial." As a crime against the state, perjury was directly described as a high misdemeanor at its inception in 15th century England. The high misdemeanor description of perjury is significant. While considered a serious offense, perjury was not labeled a felony because the common law courts would have commanded exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, perjury was classified a "high misdemeanor." In Hourie v. State, the Maryland Supreme Court gives us a historic perspective on what it called "the high misdemeanor of perjury." The court said that "the phrase 'high misdemeanor' connoted a new crime that was just as grave, in terms of its social consequences and in terms of its potential punishment, as the more ancient felonies themselves." When state governments were first being established in the early days of the American republic, perjury also was regularly listed in their constitutions as a "high crime or misdemeanor" or some very similar phrase. The House and Senate also have clearly determined that perjury is an impeachable offense. Less than 10 years ago, the House of Representatives impeached Federal District Judge Walter Nixon. The articles of impeachment included two charges of giving false testimony to a grand jury. The Senate convicted on those counts and removed Judge Nixon from office.