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: Neocon who wrote (12271)	5/9/1999 8:33:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Neocon, I feel much more confident we are finally talking in the same ballpark. There is an institutional equivalence, or analogy, to conscience in our system of law, allowing challenges to the current law. Likewise there is an oversight function with each individual concerning the law's effect on him. I suspect it is in the Preamble. Whatever. <But the law becomes meaningless if we get to pick and choose which of its injunctions suits us, which is why it is almost always wrong to break the law without a willingness to pay the consequences.> Too facile, but not fully incorrect. Who, but each individual, can determine where his circumstances are different from the main, the written laws? It is an inherent, inalienable right to say, this law does not apply because this reality is different than the written law. Civil disobedience says this law does not apply because this law is different than another [higher, conscience] law. Why it is "almost always wrong to break the law" is that few people know reality and law well enough to determine a correct difference. Our legislators are not fools, and the legal system wasn't born yesterday. Although I suspected some type of civil disobedience at first, I think it is only similar to CD, but not the same. <I do not see what higher principle was being upheld by Clinton in evading his obligations to the court. These are laws that he believes in and is willing to impose on others. Our rulers must be subject to the same laws that they impose on others...> I am not privy to Clinton. I suspect the principle, the problem, was that the court had decided on Discovery incorrectly, and that the incorrect decision was causing actual damage. If the court has exceeded its bounds in ordering extra discovery, then the court's command to testify is invalid. If the court would cause damage, even to Clinton alone, with an illegal order, then Clinton is obligated to Not observe his obligation to the court. As stated, most people would not have the knowledge to make such a call about so esoteric a topic as discovery. As you've stated, Clinton was deeply involved in this legislation at all points. Given his hobby, he was likely personally involved as well as professionally. Knowing all that Discovery was seeking to discover, he was fully versed in the circumstances of the law and reality. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to conclude he was correct in determining the court was beyond what the law allows. <Suppose that there were some underlying rationale better than merely saving his own skin. Does it rise to the level of your analogy? In your scenario, the imminent danger of drowning makes it okay to knock out the guard. Surely if the danger were merely of getting wet and catching cold, there would be no justification for taking the law into one's own hands. What was the big deal that justified Clinton?....> Correct, my analogy was exaggerated to make the principles clear. Whether there was a big deal is not knowable. I suspect the President knew adultery would be looked poorly upon by America. He was correct. Many people I know personally say Clinton deserves impeachment based on his marital infidelity. As the President, he has many roles to play that do better for the country if he is not thought poorly of. This alone could be a big enough deal. Unfortunately, a bigger deal was made of his personal exception to a fallacious, arbitrary law than arbitrary law itself. There is terror in me at that. The perjury was a crime. Judge Wright can rule on that as factual--did he answer what I asked? But the perjury was also an objection to the law that the judge was depending upon to rule upon the facts. Therefore, her ruling on the motivation/circumstances of the objection is beyond her jurisdiction. This case belongs with an appeal judge. The stipulations of her ruling on the perjury facts is to discourage appeal. This strikes me as either non-law-serving of Judge Wright, or a deal with Clinton. Chances are it will be paid and over, which opens the case to be tried by Starr, not an appeals bench, where again looms Impeachment of a very lame duck. The whole thing strikes me as opposed to ferreting out the truth, but rather hounding Clinton interminably. There, the political complications distorting the law, is the big deal you asked about.