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: Machaon who wrote (10466)	1/24/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 13994

Misbehavior Enough to Remove Presidents The Oklahoman Sunday, January 24, 1999 Virgil Medlin, Ph.D., J.D. Misbehavior Enough To Oust Presidents Virgil D Medlin, Ph.D, J.D. The Oklahoman Sunday, January 24, 1999 Is President Clinton's conduct impeach-able and a basis for conviction and removal? The Founding Fathers adopted the language, treason and bribery, and the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors" from the English practice of impeachment. Such terminology is interpreted as the Founding Fathers understood it in 1787, say Chief Justices John Marshall and William Howard Taft. The English practice (1386-1787) variously included treason, bribery, corruption, maladministration, negligence, betrayal of trust, even cursing and drinking to excess, and whoring, etc. The Founding Fathers concluded that while no one would be impeached for an opinion, a president could be removed for "misbehavior." The great justice Joseph Story wrote in 1933 that a legal crime was not necessary for impeachment, but included offenses "growing out of personal misconduct of gross neglect, or usurpation or habitual disregard..." What has been the American practice? The 13 impeachments in U.S. history fall into three categories: (1) exceeding constitu-tional bounds of power, (2) using an office for improper purpose of gain, and (3) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the office. No impeachment stressed criminal vio-lations; none required the proof, much less the procedures, of a criminal trial. Impeach-ment in 1803 and 1876 removed federal jud-ges for intoxication and/or "loose morals" and profane language. The Andrew Johnson impeachment (1868) charged him as "un-mindful of high duties of his office, and dignity and proprieties thereof," after the president made "inflammatory" speeches that attempted to "ridicule and disgrace" the Congress. President Clinton's offenses grew out of personal misconduct and clearly fell within the pattern of historical impeachments in the United States and England. The president need not commit a crime to be removed. Impeachment is a remedy to remove office holders who would bring discredit or harm to the constitutional process. Impeachment applies to individual office holders and is not a means to enforce a standard of conduct on the general popu-lation; that is the duty of prosecutors and the courts, the executive and judicial branches of government, applying the criminal code. That is why impeachment is left to Congress to decide and why application of judicial or legal concepts of fairness and due process would subvert the Constitution. Clinton supporters commonly misquote Benjamin Franklin so that it appears Frank-lin viewed impeachment as the equivalent of assassination and thus a last resort. Frank-lin, a supporter of impeachment, did state impeachment is preferable to assassinating a president who had "rendered himself obnoxious." Medlin lives in Oklahoma City. freerepublic.com