High Crimes and Misdemeanors
In 1998, the House of Representatives set the bar for presidential conduct when it approved Articles of Impeachment. Just what did the House condemn?
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice...
Article One http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=456
That's pretty clear language, isn't it? The House makes it clear that a sitting president is not permitted to violate "his constitutional oath of ofice to execute the office...and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." Nor is he permitted to "willfully corrup[t] and manipulat[e] the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration...", nor is "impeding the administration of justice" permissable behavior. Indeed, such activities are so injurious to the Republic that Clinton was charged with doing them all twice (Articles One and Two).
In Article Three, the House tells us, Clinton also "has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a...duly instituted judicial proceeding." Further, Article Four asserts, Clinton "impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth—seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding..."
(Articles Two and Four failed to win majority votes in the House.)
Ah, but those were different times. Certainly the current members of the House would never hold the current president to the same standard, would they? Perhaps we should ask Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, Majority Whip Roy Blunt and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. They voted "Aye" on all four Articles in 1998. And what of the Senate? Would Majority Leader Bill Frist agree that the behavior described in the Clinton Articles of Impeachment still consitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"? He certainly thought so then, since he voted to convict on both. What about Senator John McCain? Would he hold all presidents to the same standard he voted to impose on Clinton? Would either Frist or McCain swear an oath to avoid such behavior if either is ever elected president?
The answer should be clear -- indeed, all Americans would agree that a president should never violate his constitutional oath, manipulate or corrupt the judicial process, delay or impede a duly constituted investigation, or contravene the authority of the legislative branch. Well, maybe not all Americans. King George doesn't consider such actions worthy of impeachment. Indeed, they are the hallmarks of his term in office. And such upholders of our constitutional system as Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Sensenbrenner, Frist, McCain, et. al., apparently agree. Not one of them has so much as entertained the notion that a president who confesses to committing dozens of felonies should be considered in violation of his oath. Indeed, they dismiss any talk of holding the current president accountable for his crimes as "extreme." Frist says even suggesting a censure of the president is "crazy". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200877.html
If that's what they say now, when the president has admitted breaking the law, and dfiantly proclaimed his intention to continue breaking it so long as he reigns, what does that make them? And what did it make them in 1998 and 1999 when they voted to remove from office a president they were convinced had broken the law?
In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice...
Article One http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=456
That's pretty clear language, isn't it? The House makes it clear that a sitting president is not permitted to violate "his constitutional oath of ofice to execute the office...and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." Nor is he permitted to "willfully corrup[t] and manipulat[e] the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration...", nor is "impeding the administration of justice" permissable behavior. Indeed, such activities are so injurious to the Republic that Clinton was charged with doing them all twice (Articles One and Two).
In Article Three, the House tells us, Clinton also "has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a...duly instituted judicial proceeding." Further, Article Four asserts, Clinton "impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth—seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding..."
(Articles Two and Four failed to win majority votes in the House.)
Ah, but those were different times. Certainly the current members of the House would never hold the current president to the same standard, would they? Perhaps we should ask Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner, Majority Whip Roy Blunt and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. They voted "Aye" on all four Articles in 1998. And what of the Senate? Would Majority Leader Bill Frist agree that the behavior described in the Clinton Articles of Impeachment still consitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors"? He certainly thought so then, since he voted to convict on both. What about Senator John McCain? Would he hold all presidents to the same standard he voted to impose on Clinton? Would either Frist or McCain swear an oath to avoid such behavior if either is ever elected president?
The answer should be clear -- indeed, all Americans would agree that a president should never violate his constitutional oath, manipulate or corrupt the judicial process, delay or impede a duly constituted investigation, or contravene the authority of the legislative branch. Well, maybe not all Americans. King George doesn't consider such actions worthy of impeachment. Indeed, they are the hallmarks of his term in office. And such upholders of our constitutional system as Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Sensenbrenner, Frist, McCain, et. al., apparently agree. Not one of them has so much as entertained the notion that a president who confesses to committing dozens of felonies should be considered in violation of his oath. Indeed, they dismiss any talk of holding the current president accountable for his crimes as "extreme." Frist says even suggesting a censure of the president is "crazy". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200877.html
If that's what they say now, when the president has admitted breaking the law, and dfiantly proclaimed his intention to continue breaking it so long as he reigns, what does that make them? And what did it make them in 1998 and 1999 when they voted to remove from office a president they were convinced had broken the law?
posted by wally at 7:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home