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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (9787)	12/29/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

There was an interesting discussion by Tony Snow this a.m. regarding the language the founding fathers used in framing the constitution and the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as it pertained to the time in which it was written. As one with any spattering of education in history would acknowledge the language of the times in which the constitution was written contained different meanings of many words than would be construed today-especially by our relatively morally ambiguous society of today. The word 'misdemeanor' as used in the context of the time in which it was written is far different than today although if one looks up the word in the dictionary you find one of the meanings as "an instance of misbehavior; misdeed". The meaning at that time in history used the term 'malfeasance', among others, in describing misdemeanor. "Malfeasance- misconduct or wrongdoing committed esp. by a public official." It's obvious the founding fathers intended to try and prevent "misbehavior" and "misconduct" by public officials through possible punishment by impeachment and removal from office. Tony Snow also pointed out how the term "high crime" related specifically to the station of the person committing the 'crime' not how serious was the crime committed. This makes sense when one considers how difficult it would be to delineate which crimes would be impeachable and which ones would not-much too subjective. It's enough that it's a 'crime' as determined by law. The intention was to prevent one person of a higher 'station' from being 'above' any crimes the rest of us are held accountable to. It's all very simple. Clinton only has only himself to blame. He signed into legislation allowing the complete investigation into one's private sexual life once accused of sexual harassment. He committed the admittedly salacious acts (misbehavior/misconduct) for which he is accused. He allegedly lied under oath (crime-doesn't matter what it's over) both in the Paula Jones deposition, for which she was entitled to due process as determined by the supreme court, and during his grand jury testimony. He allegedly subtly contrived to get others to lie for him (another crime). He is sworn to uphold the constitution which calls for possible impeachment and removal from office upon committing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Now all that remains is to see if the country has the guts to follow the constitution - the spine of our country. halfscot