TO ALL: Dole on Impeachment Substitute
No one has brought up Bob Dole's op-ed piece --"A Tough but Responsible Solution" -- in the New York Times today (Tuesday). So I am posting it, in case you haven't read it.
First, a couple of comments, based on a cursory reading.
1) If Bob Dole had been elected in 1996, there is no chance we would have been subjected to a long-protracted scandal. But there is a very good chance Dole would have bored us to death instead, <gg>
2) What he seems to be proposing is a joint "censure resolution", to be passed by both houses of Congress. But his proposal (as distinct from Ford's proposal) seems to me to be motivated by the desire to ensure Clinton will be "nailed." He says he thinks the chances that the Senate would vote to remove Clinton are virtually nil (leaving open the possibility Clinton would escape "scot free). So, says Dole, don't have a trial at all; just prepare a joint resolution in advance. Furthermore -- if I read "Step Two" correctly -- the joint resolution will contain the "essence" of all four counts of impeachment, whether or not the House votes in support of all of them! So -- why even have a House vote?
3) Am I misreading this or what? Any other interpretations? And what is the likelihood, in your view, that Dole's proposal will be considered?
A Tough but Responsible Solution
By BOB DOLE
WASHINGTON -- While no longer a member of Congress, as the Republican Presidential candidate in 1996 I do have more than a passing interest in the pending impeachment proceeding.
Without rehashing that election, suffice it to say that any chance of success I may have had was wiped out by an avalanche of negative television advertising paid for with money raised through
questionable fund-raising tactics by the President and Vice President. Attorney General Janet Reno has buried her head in the sand on this serious matter, but let's hope that someone in Congress will hold the Attorney General accountable and pursue the alleged illegal fund-raising activities.
Having said that, let me lay out what might be an imperfect but tough and reasonable solution to the pending impeachment matter.
I have reminded myself that to impeach or accuse is the constitutional responsibility of the House; to convict or acquit is the constitutional responsibility of the Senate. I seriously doubt
that half the American people understand the complex impeachment process.
Let me also note, at the outset, that many large and small details would have to be worked out by Congressional leaders working with the House and Senate parliamentarians and legal counsels. I've been there and know how much work putting all this together will entail, including all the procedural hurdles.
So, here goes:
Step No. 1: Vote in the House of Representatives on any or all of the four articles of impeachment reported by the House Judiciary Committee.
Step No. 2: Regardless of the outcome of the House vote on any of the four articles, the Senate majority leader would, at the earliest possible time, introduce in the Senate a joint resolution(numbered 1600 if possible). The resolution would contain the essence or "guts" of all articles of impeachment considered by the House, plus any other necessary language, as determined by the Senate majority leader.
Step No. 3: After suspending or amending the rules governing impeachment proceedings, the Senate would take up and consider the joint resolution under a time agreement. The Vice President (President of the Senate) would preside at all times. No amendments except technical amendments offered by the majority leader would be in order. All points of order would be waived.
Step No. 4: Upon final action by the Senate, the House of Representatives would take up the joint resolution: no amendments in order, except technical amendments offered by the Speaker or his
designee. Points of order would be waived. The resolution would be considered under a time agreement.
Step No. 5: If a House-Senate conference is necessary, the conference report would be considered under a time agreement in both the House and the Senate.
Conditions, Etc.
1. The President announces his intention to support and sign the joint resolution before any action on the resolution by the Senate.
a. The President agrees to sign the joint resolution at a public signing ceremony attended by the Vice President, Congressional leadership and other appropriate members of the House and Senate recommended by Democratic and Republican leaders; the President's Cabinet; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and others as recommended by House and Senate leaders.
b. White House, Senate and House media -- television, radio, print and photographers -- shall be present.
c. The site, date and hour of the ceremony is to be determined by the House Speaker, or his designee, and the Senate majority leader.
d. Copies of the signed joint resolution, with an appropriate Presidential letter, are to be forwarded to members of the Cabinet, members of Congress and heads of other Government agencies. This is to be completed within seven days of signing the joint resolution.
2. The overall agreement is to be determined by the Speaker, or his designee, and the Senate majority leader.
Possible items:
a. All Congressional action completed and the President's signature affixed on or by Jan. 2, 1999.
b. Bipartisan. Any agreement in the House or Senate with reference to the proceedings shall be inoperative if the President, Vice President and Democratic Congressional leaders fail to publicly and actively support the joint resolution. Support is to be demonstrated by the President, Vice President and Democratic leadership in House and Senate, prior to and throughout consideration of the joint resolution. Republican leaders also agree to publicly and
actively support it.
c. The Speaker, or his designee, and the majority leader shall outline procedure, rules, time and any and all other matters pertaining to debate and disposition of the joint resolution, and could, if appropriate, include provisions relating to the President's legal obligations upon leaving office.
3. Penalties. Any penalty imposed must be in accordance with the Constitution and could require the voluntary agreement by the President to overcome the prohibition against bills of attainder.
Summary
These are my ideas. They are offered in good faith. I have consulted with no one.
They may not be worthy of a second thought, but I believe the suggestions could lead to a fairly broad bipartisan result.
There is scarcely anyone who believes that the required 67 Senators would vote to convict the President on any of the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee, notwithstanding what the full House might do.
I hope these suggestions will be seen as a blending of responsibility and justice, which will permit an expeditious disposition of the entire matter before the new 106th Congress begins work in January 1999.
It is also my hope that pursuing the above suggested outline, or a modified version thereof, would demonstrate to the vast majority of Americans that Republican Congressional leaders will
fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, clear the decks and move forward when the 106th Congress convenes on Jan. 6, 1999.
I cannot imagine a better way for Republicans to start the new year than by taking charge, and producing just results, at this historic moment. It is time for a tough but responsible conclusion.
Maybe these ideas will be a starting point for a bipartisan ending.
nytimes.com
|
