Clinton faces uncertain future

Twice in the last six years, President Clinton swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" in front of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the nation.

Two years after his second election to the highest office in the nation, Clinton's presidency is in jeopardy because of illegal and improper acts that Independent Council Kenneth Starr alleges the president committed.

The president's now-confirmed sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and the following attempt to conceal their affair is at the center of the allegations, inciting debate from the halls of the Capitol to the streets of middle America.

But the future is far from clear at this point, and with terms like impeachment, censure and resignation flying through the air, it would be easy to get lost during the long and arduous process that lies ahead.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are currently poring through the 445-page report the Office of the Independent Council submitted to them last week, alleging 11 offenses the office claims warrant the removal of the president.

While Clinton's lawyers make their case to the nation on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation," it is now up to the 37-member committee to decide where to take the investigation. One option for the committee is to begin an impeachment inquiry into the affair.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides for the removal of the president after being convicted of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

This is the process advocated by the OIC and various members of Congress, but the White House claims that the report does not make enough of a case for impeachment.

Political science assistant Prof. Vincent Hutchings said he is preparing to give a lecture on this topic to his legislative process class. He said the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard leaves room for legal interpretation.

"It's pretty vague. It is necessarily vague for political reasons," Hutchings said. "The framers wanted to leave it that way because they didn't know what could happen in the future."

The report does not represent impeachable offenses,

Hutchings opined, but he said he believes the committee will begin an inquiry.

But the process will not be speedy, possibly dragging well into 1999, Hutchings added.

"It's politically motivated," Hutchings said.

"The Republicans are going to make every effort to prolong the embarrassment to the President, in part as payback for the (Richard) Nixon affair."

Law Prof. Samuel Gross also said the report does not constitute grounds for impeachment, but he does say it appears the president comitted perjury.

"On the perjury count, it's pretty clear," Gross said.

"Taking the report at face value, it certainly sounds like he perjured himself."

But the question of whether that alone, or even that coupled with a further attempt to cover up the sexual liaison is grounds for impeachment, is not as clear, according to Gross.

"If these sorts of things are impeachable, it would be very unfortunate," Gross said. "It isn't abuse of power or genuinely serious criminal conduct."

The final decision on whether to move to impeachment hearings will be made by the House Judiciary Committee, but all signs point to the beginning of an inquiry into the affair. This could lead to the drafting of articles of impeachment by the committee. These articles would then be voted on by the committee and the full House.

If passed, the President would be tried on the Senate floor, where a two-thirds majority would be needed to convict and remove him from office.

This process has begun only twice before in the 220 years of the Constitution. In 1974, articles of impeachment were drawn up for Richard Nixon, but the president resigned before the process went further. But in 1869, Andrew Johnson was just one vote short of being convicted by the Senate after the House voted to impeach.

Another option for the members of Congress is censure, a similarly seldom used reprimand. Censuring someone, which requires a vote in one or both house in Congress, formally condemns a person's actions.

Censure's most notable and famous use was the Senate's 1954 reprimand of Sen.. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin after his attacks on alleged communists. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was also censured for abuse of power, and forced to pay a $300,000 fine as a result.

The only president censured was Andrew Jackson in 1834, after refusing to give documents to the Senate. But the measure was stricken from the Congressional Record as unconstitutional when Jackson's party returned to power in the Senate.

Although it is unclear whether this option is constitutional, the idea is gaining popularity across the nation because it would allow Clinton to finish his term while acknowledging his wrongdoing.

"It's a symbolic measure to express contempt and displeasure," Hutchings said. "That is the most likely option now. It's probably going to happen."

09-15-98