A Section of My Draft

This section is what I would have called an introduction...but I'm not supposed to call it that....so its a brief chronology, which I will probably expound upon for the final, and will wind up being placed before the bulk of the text, so here's a beginning:

November 15, 1995 – President Clinton begins a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky

January 21, 1998 – The Washington Post reveals the Clinton-Lewinsky affair and investigation

December 19, 1998 – The House of Representatives approves two of four articles for impeachment proposed by the Judiciary Committee; President Clinton is impeached

February 12, 1999 – The Senate trial ends; the President is acquitted

(Posner ix-xi)

Half way through the 42^nd President of the United State’s tenure, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the 105^th House of Representatives for his relationship with former White House aid, Monica Lewinsky; and for his false statements to the public on the extent of their relationship. The House was controlled by the Republican Party during this time and “Clinton was impeached and acquitted almost precisely along party lines” (Beschloss x). The broad question that scholars must ask of this event in modern American history is how this sequence of events has changed the political culture and structure of America as we know it. Presently, as we are in the middle of the 43^rd President’s second term and talk of impeachment is arising again, how do we respond to this grave notion of submitting to the idea that the leader the American people have chosen for themselves is not worthy to hold office in the eyes of the law and those of the Congress?

In an attempt to address this broad question of the Clinton Scandal’s influence I will address the history of impeachment briefly and attempt to interpret the constitution’s words and the precedents that have been set forth by previous cases of impeachment. I will then move to discuss the impact of this particular impeachment on the system of precedence which our nation relies upon, further examining how this precedent has the ability to dramatically change our definition of impeachment, forever leaving leaders in fear of impeachment for partisan differences. Once I have established the impacts of these events on the concrete aspects of our political system I will move to their impact on our political culture and thereby the impact on the parties themselves........

These questions are not just of significance to our generation, but to every generation of Americans to come. If our nation stands the test of time this sequence of events will have an impact unequalled by any previous impeachment our nation has seen.


**************
It's still being worked on. Secondly here is an excerpt from the first section of the paper, impeachment. This needs heavy restructuring because I updated my outline yesterday, so I haven't moved things around yet. Look to the outline for a better idea of structure, but this for early content:

I will not go to the extent of copying all of the constitution’s provisions for impeachment here, but I will note those which I feel are most important for this discussion.

Article I

Section 2

(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3

(6) The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Article II

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

(Black 77-79)

The Constitution of the United States was written as and intended to be an incomplete document. The articles laid forth in it were written with the expressed purpose of allowing for change in interpretation as the need be, and to allow for any freedoms to coexist that the founders did not fathom at the time of the document’s creation. For this reason, among others, the Constitution of the United States has been a constant source of strife in our nation with regards to legality. The Clinton impeachment scandal is no exception. The events of the impeachment process are what Tushnet refers to as “constitutional construction.” This phrase refers to the inference of government officials of how our nation’s government should be structured and how it should operate. “Even when read in light of their original understanding, (the constitution’s) express terms do not define precisely the ways in which many functions of a modern state are to be carried out” (Tushnet 162). This intentional ambiguity is the source of all constitutional questioning and makes direct contact with the heart of the Clinton impeachment scandal.

In our nation’s history only two Presidents have been impeached, and neither of them has been convicted by the Senate. The first was Andrew Johnson in 1868 for intentionally breaking the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to change out the Secretary of War. President Clinton was impeached for Perjury to a Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice. The question that the American people and the Congress dealt with in the late 1990s was what an impeachable offense was. According to the Constitution’s intentionally vague wording, these offenses are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. We cannot debate whether or not the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was legal, because it has stood the test of time and trial, but what we can debate is whether the charges against the President fell under impeachable offenses, and in order to attack this question we must look to the starting point of these offenses and whether or not the events that led up to these ‘crimes’ were events that jeopardized our nation or its leadership.

President Andrew Johnson was impeached for intentionally breaking the law in order to gain more political power with a new appointee to his Cabinet. This precedent falls under high crimes against the state or misdemeanors because he was breaking the law for personal gain while in office, if only in terms of the power that he could exercise as the President. His actions were brought to impeachment because he attempted to break the law outwardly, and he was saved from conviction by the Senate by only one vote (Van Tassel, Finkelman 11).

This one and only precedent for impeachment outlines the concept that impeachable offenses are those which are offenses that promote personal gain, particularly gain in power of the office of the President. There is also an equally important impression given by this precedent: there is only one. There had been only one President of the United States to be impeached previous to Clinton, and his actions were serious enough to warrant a Senate conviction vote that was split down to the wire. Impeachment is the gravest of duties of the Congress, as I have stated above, and it is important to note that though many investigations have been launched for impeachment of various civil officers during our nation’s history, only 16 of these cases were formally charged by the House of Representatives (Van Tassel, Finkelman 1).

The Clinton impeachment charges brought by the House to vote were as follows: 1) Obstruction of Justice while being in league with Monica Lewinsky by giving false statements to a grand jury; 2) Perjury in front of a grand jury; 3) Perjury in the Jones v. Clinton case; 4) Abuse of Power. Only two of these charges passed the house vote, charges one and two as listed above, but neither were convicted by the Senate. In light of which charges were passed, we must ask whether or not these charges are part of the high crimes and misdemeanors category. Both counts refer to the divulgence of information on a personal relationship between the President and an aide. Regardless of whether or not his actions were morally correct, the question that needed to be asked in terms of the constitutionality of Clinton’s impeachment was whether or not keeping personal information about sexual relations is to be considered in some way or another a crime that threatens the security of our nation in terms of power.

********************

OK, that's not everything that I have, but it's all I'm going to put up now, mainly because it's still a draft.