After months of partisan politicking and revelations about the spicier portions of elected officials' lives, the U.S. House passed two of the four articles of impeachment presented by the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 19, 1998. The voting was almost entirely along party lines, with a mere five Democrats voting in favor of impeachment and a similarly small handful of Republicans opposed. The hours of debate on the House floor led many Americans to a feeling of anger toward their elected representatives, as evidenced by the sharp results of a public opinion poll taken immediately after President Clinton's impeachment.
Incensed by the rallying call that was House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston's (R-La.) resignation, conservative and moderate Republicans alike rallied around the party line. Tomorrow the Senate will begin the second presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history. The Senate should not follow the lower house's example of inflexibility and partisanship; instead it should consider censure as an alternative means of punishment.
With world economic crises and the ongoing dispute with Iraq among the many prominent issues with which Congress must deal, the Senate will conduct a trial that could easily stall legislators for months and leave key government officials unsure of their future and unable to act effectively. The 100 senators, who will act as the jury in Clinton's trial, must find him not guilty of the charges in the weak articles passed by the House, which were sparked by a witch hunt led by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
The 435-page Starr Report is full of dirty little secrets about the private relationship between Lewinsky and Clinton, but little more. Starr was hired in 1994 to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater real estate scandal. Five years and $40 million later, all Starr has dug up is a story about the presidential sex life. While Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were quick to compliment "Judge" Starr, his biases and tendency to act outside the ethical boundaries required of prosecutors call his motives into question.
The neo-Puritanism that looms over the Capitol has been detrimental to both parties. Livingston, a veteran legislator who chaired the House Appropriations Committee, was pressured to step down after he admitted to marital infidelity. This new form of McCarthyism is doling out power to the nation's leaders based on their sexual history and not their capability to serve the nation.
The public scandal began in January of 1998 when Clinton acted disingenuously at his deposition in a civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. After months of finagling over immunity deals, Starr managed to get the testimony of former White House intern Monica Lewinsky that contradicted Clinton's deposition about the substance of their relationship. But determining whether or not Clinton's testimony amounted to legal perjury requires more than a finding of untruth.
Even if his testimony were to reach the threshold of perjury, it does not constitute an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution. The clause was put in to protect the American people from a president who abuses his power to the detriment of the nation, not as a way for a lame duck Congress to reverse a popular election for lying about sex. But despite the testimony of numerous constitutional scholars before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and other Committee Republicans showed their zeal at perpetuating a grave miscarriage of congressional power.
The impeachment debate has turned into little more than a partisan quabble. Time and again, Republicans have used their power as the majority party to serve their political ends rather than fostering a fair debate. For instance, the House leadership denied Democrats the opportunity to bring a censure resolution to the floor for a vote.
While a simple majority is all that was necessary to move the issue to the other side of the Capitol, two-thirds of the Senate will have to consent to remove Clinton. With partisanship plaguing the issue as it has, it is unlikely that Republicans, who hold only 55 seats in the Senate, will be able to muster enough votes to remove him from office. Nonetheless, some Republicans interviewed shortly after the passage of the articles of impeachment stated their belief that partisanship would end at the doors of the House. Many cited the oath of impartiality that senators will take prior to the trial as sufficient to prevent politics from guiding the Senate's decision. While it is important for the senators to give a fair reading of the facts in this matter and acquit the president, it is unlikely that partisanship will be dissipated by an oath.
Further, many senators have thrown any possibility of impartiality to the wind by espousing their beliefs in the media about the gravity or inconsequence of the issues to come before them. Unlike jurors, many senators have had no problem indicating their preference before the trial.
There are alternatives to a drawn-out trial that could stall legislation and disrupt the activities of all three branches of government. A proposal by Sens. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) would condense the trial to four days. The proposal also calls for a vote at the beginning of the trial to determine if the requisite two-thirds of senators even believe that the allegations in the two articles of impeachment would warrant Clinton's removal from office. If not, it is likely that the the Senate trial would adjourn immediately. Despite the objection of many conservative senators, this proposal should be adopted to speed the process along.
Besides political problems presented by the articles of impeachment to be brought before the Senate tomorrow, a significant procedural and constitutional problem exists. As pointed out by Yale constitutional law Prof. Bruce Ackerman in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee and in a paper recently published, allowing the Senate to proceed on articles passed by a lame-duck House sets a frightening precedent. Normally, legislation passed by only one house at the end of a session of Congress dies and must be repassed by both houses in the new term. Despite their invocation of vaunted constitutional principles, Republicans are ignoring the pathos of the 20th Amendment and the deference that should be paid to the newly elected Congress. The House should at least resubmit the appointment of impeachment managers to allow the new representatives a chance to confirm or annul the passage of the articles of impeachment.
The scandal and impeachment debacle has held the public spotlight for almost a year, but there are still no grounds to remove Bill Clinton from office. The president's lawyers and the Senate should work together to reach a censure deal. Ending the impeachment debate quickly would be the best way to begin to restore public confidence in governmental affairs and allow legislators to address the many pressing public issues facing the nation and the world.
Clinton
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
459 Russel Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-6201
E-mail: senator@levin.senate.gov
Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.)
329 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-4822
E-mail: michigan@abraham.senate.gov
01-06-99
| Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |