Half way through the 42nd President of the United State’s tenure, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the 105th 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 “
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, particularly which party has the ability to claim the moral right, and thereby gather the Christian vote that holds a such significant sway in our nation. Finally my analysis will move into the realm of power, political or otherwise, and how the Clinton impeachment process altered the roles of the public, government, and press in relation to the use of political power before moving into how these changes have affected the political power structure of the United States since the Presidential Election of 2000.
President Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in front of a grand jury and attempting to obstruct justice by doing so. The question that the American people and the Congress dealt with in the late 1990s was what an impeachable offense was and what it was not. 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 the process was purely constitutional, but what we can debate is whether the charges against the President fell under impeachable offenses. In order to attack this question we must look to the starting point of President Clinton’s actions and whether or not the events that followed jeopardized our nation or its constitution.
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.
The Constitutionality of Impeachment
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
Article II
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
(Constitution of the
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
In our nation’s history only two Presidents have been impeached (President Nixon was never formally impeached before his resignation), and neither of them has been convicted by the Senate. In order for the President to be impeached, the House Judiciary Committee considers impeachment, then submits a recommendation to the entire House on whether or not to pursue an impeachment inquiry. The House Judiciary Committee then drafts an Articles of Impeachment listing the specific counts the President is charged with and these Articles, once passed in the committee, are submitted to the House. The House then debates and votes on the Articles, each being debated and voted on separately, needing only a straight majority to pass the Articles and begin a trial in the Senate. In the Senate, the House managers form the prosecution and a “super-majority” is needed for conviction on each Article, two-thirds of the body.
The first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868 for intentionally breaking the Tenure of Office Act by attempting to change out the Secretary of War by removing a personal enemy, Edwin M. Stanton, from office. Johnson was formally impeached by the House of Representatives on February 24, 1868 and was brought to trial in the Senate beginning on March 13.
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 or misdemeanors against the state 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).
The Tenure of Office Act was passed on March 2, 1867 despite Johnson’s veto. The act forbid the President to dismiss an appointed cabinet member without the consent of the Senate. Johnson’s defense argued that the act did not apply to Johnson’s actions because Stanton was appointed by Lincoln during his first term, and was thereby simply a “hold-over” cabinet member. Johnson had attempted to get the Senate to ratify Stanton’s removal, but the effort was voted down on January 3, 1868. Despite the Senate’s veto, Johnson attempted to remove Stanton from office on February 21, 1868. Because of the vague language of the Tenure of Office Act, and the argument presented by the defense, it was decided that Johnson had not broken the law. The Tenure of Office act was later repealed in 1887.
This one and only precedent for impeachment outlines the concept that impeachable offenses are those which 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
On September 9, 1998 after four and a half years of investigation and over forty million dollars (Busby 134), the Office of Independent Counsel headed by Kenneth W. Starr presented the Starr Report to the House of Representatives which outlined the offenses of President Clinton and listed eleven possible grounds for impeachment (Busby 128). On October 5, 1998 the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend an impeachment inquiry to the House of Representatives. The House passed this recommendation three days later, and the Judiciary Committee debated and passed four articles for impeachment on December 12, 1998 (Busby 146). Three of the four Articles proposed by the Judiciary Committee were voted on according to strict partisan lines. The second Article had one dissenting Republican vote against it (Busby 151). The House of Representatives voted on the four Articles of Impeachment on December 19, 1998.
The Articles of Impeachment charges brought by the House to vote were as follows: 1) The President provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky; 2) The President provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition; 3) The President obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case; 4) The President misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. Only two of these Articles passed the House vote, Articles one and three as listed above, Article one by a 228 Yea to 206 Nay vote and Article three by a 221 Yea to 212 Nay vote. Both votes were not strictly along partisan lines.
In light of which Articles 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, and whether or not the concealment of this information obstructed the course of justice. Regardless of whether or not his actions were morally correct, the question that needed to be asked in terms of the constitutionality of
On January 7, 1999 President Clinton’s impeachment trial began in the Senate. The trial was presided by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The trial lasted just over one month, ending on February 12, 1999. Of note is that the Senate held a vote on January 27 to drop all charges against President Clinton, but the vote returned 56-44 to continue the proceedings. On February 12th President Clinton was acquitted of both charges, on the count of perjury the vote was Guilty: 45 Not Guilty: 55; on the count of obstructing justice the vote was Guilty: 50 Not Guilty: 50.
The impeachment process was designed during the creation of our nation’s constitution as an extension of the separation of powers that the founders felt was necessary to create a system that would not be ruled either by executive or judicial tyranny. Both of these branches government, as well as the members of the legislative branch are subject to impeachment, and its intention is to secure the safety of the American people, the United States Constitution, and our form of democracy. The meaning of this paragraph is paramount to this discussion. When looking at the way that the Clinton impeachment has changed the American political system that we are a part of, we must realize that his impeachment was a dramatic first step away from the intentions of the founders of the nation and thereby the constitution.
When the constitution was written there were members of the constitutional convention that opposed including articles for impeachment “on the grounds that an impeachment process would make the President dependent on whichever branch of government was delegated the impeachment power,” (Van Tassel, Finkelman 17) which is exactly what Americans saw in the impeachment process of 1998. A Republican controlled House of Representatives moved to impeach a President who was keeping their agenda from being met, without adequate legal grounds in terms of precedent of law, resulting in the President being prey to the rule of one specific body of government while only 35% of the people polled, on the day of impeachment by the House, supported the move for impeachment (Morris 45).
The supporters of the
“This is a mistake; the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” has nothing to do with criminal law. High crimes and misdemeanors are completely different from criminal offences in purpose, scope, consequence, and meaning. One telltale fact is that there is no such thing as a “high crime” in the criminal law. Though there are “crimes” and there are “misdemeanors” there are no “high crimes” or “high misdemeanors.”” (Coulter 259)
I have a few problems with Mrs. Coulter’s statements. I do agree with her premise on impeachable offenses being completely different from criminal offences in all of the ways stated; however, I feel that these words all apply to the two main premises I have set forward above as reason for impeachment, endangering the American people via national security, or empowering the Presidency in a way that usurps power from the other branches of our government. High crimes and misdemeanors as a phrase was undoubtedly a creation of the founders to include many offences that they could not foresee, but I find it hard to believe that fellatio was included in this “all inclusive” category as Mrs. Coulter would like to believe.
Conversely, Representative Zoe Lofgren stated that, “It’s very clear that impeachment was really meant to be a between-elections remedy for behavior that endangered the system of government on the part of the chief executive…It’s not to punish the chief executive, it’s to save the constitution. Criminal law…has nothing to do with this whole process” (Busby, 142).
The analysis of the Clinton impeachment must rely heavily on the power of the precedent that the process sets for future impeachments. The United States has a system of common law, which relies upon legal precedents for future decisions. The Clinton impeachment precedent sets forth the ability for a President to be impeached without an offence that deliberately and directly threatens the security of the nation, or the balance of power within the branches of government. “The Lewinsky scandal, by contrast (to Watergate and Iran/Contra), involved misleading comments by the President and did not entail the inappropriate employment of units of the Executive branch” (Busby 17).
The discussion of precedence was present throughout the Clinton scandal, and was not overlooked by either party. For instance, Republican Representative Bill McCollum stated, “If at the end of the day, I were to conclude that the President lied under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones case with criminal intent and committed perjury, I would vote to impeach him because if we don’t do that, he will have broken the rule of law and undermined the rule of law and we would be setting a terrible precedent” (Busby 142). Despite my understanding of the need for some form of discipline, I agree with the Democratic position, impeachment was not the proper avenue. The Democratic minority in Congress supported an act of censure, which is an act of official reprimand with no legal consequences, but Republicans pointed to its absence in the constitution to rule censure out as an option for dealing with the scandal.
From this time forth, under this precedent, it will be possible to impeach a President under similar grounds if the House of Representatives is controlled by a specific group that intends on stripping the President of his power, particularly for political reasons. This precedent is as dangerous as the articles of impeachment in the eyes of the founders, for it allows a group of partisans to usurp power from the people of the
Implications on American Political Culture
The impeachment process of 1998 not only manipulated the foundation of the United States Constitution, but also dramatically changed the political culture of the United States. From Clinton’s impeachment to the midterm elections of 2006 the Democratic Party did not hold control in any branch of government, and their election results were worse than expected, particularly in the Presidential election of 2004. The Clinton scandal affected the dynamic of morality in American politics by redefining which party could claim the moral high ground. President Clinton’s actions were morally wrong; he allowed or even persuaded an aide to perform fellatio on him while sitting at his desk, even while making government business calls to congress members (Posner 17).
The Clinton impeachment also redefined the politics of scandal itself. William J. Clinton faced numerous scandals during his tenure in various public offices. His reactions to these scandals, namely his “damage limitation team” (Busby 145), and the media coverage that they received shaped the way that Americans view political scandals, particularly those of private interest. “A combination of institutional factors, partisanship, media interest and the desire of some individuals to gain publicity helped to promote scandal as a mainstay of American political life” (Busby 15). For the first time the President was on trial for charges that “would never even be considered for prosecution in the routine cases involving an ordinary defendant” (Busby 148). The Clinton scandal was one of morality and personal judgment, not the abuse of power that is typically associated with the process of impeachment.
The question that many scholars ask of the Clinton scandal is, “Why Clinton?” It has been known of Presidents throughout or nation’s history to be engaged in affairs while in office, “why was Clinton pursued with such vigor by the Independent Counsel and the Republican controlled Congress?” (Busby 17). The answer that many people would point to is the partisanship of our nation, and the Republican Party’s attempt to regain some power from the executive branch; while others assert that it was Congress’ duty to impeach a President guilty of perjury in front of both a grand jury and the American people. Whatever the reason for impeachment, the definitive scope of partisanship in the proceedings cannot go unobserved, and overwhelming partisanship’s impact upon the future of American politics can already be seen. The election results since the impeachment of President Clinton have highly favored the Republican Party until the midterm elections of 2006. While these results rightfully contributed to individual candidates and individual elections, the trend away from the Democratic Party cannot be ignored.
Morality and a political party’s ability to claim it is a crucial aspect of politics in our “one nation under God.” Since the days of the colonies, religion and Christianity in particular has played a decisive role in politics. From the Puritans and their witch trials, to early Evangelicals in New York State and their push for the abolition of slavery, to the current debate over gay marriage and abortion, religion’s influence on American politics is explicit. It can easily be seen that a moral scandal of Clinton’s magnitude can affect the nationwide opinion of not only his character but the character of his party. Lies and adulterous relations do not mesh with Christian, Jewish or Islamic beliefs, which as a group comprise at least 80 percent of the citizens of the United States.(CIA FACTBOOK)
It can be argued that during the Presidential election of 1992, Clinton and the democrats held the moral high ground, if for no other reason that Barbara Bush’s public pro-choice stance (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/28/lklw.00.html). However, in the Presidential election of 2000 it was obvious that George W. Bush was pushing his morality as a major platform plank. ***INSERT QUOTES FROM SPEECHES*** The nation was looking for a moral candidate. Despite high approval polls during the impeachment process, devout citizens were looking for a morally responsible candidate. Al Gore fell short and George W. Bush picked up the slack.
The politics of scandal have been a major player in US national politics since the advance of television and internet technologies. Scandal has always been existent in politics, but not until the television revolution were ordinary citizens enthralled with all the details as moving pictures and corresponding sound enables.
“After two or three weeks the Senate Watergate hearings were the hottest thing on television. Here by God was a real soap opera: tragedy, treachery, weird humor and the constant suspense of never knowing who was lying and who was telling the truth…Which hardly mattered to the vast audience of political innocents who soon found themselves as hooked on the all-day hearings as they’d previously been on the soaps and quiz shows.” (Thomson 334)
Vietnam brought war into everyone’s living room. Watergate brought doubt in our electoral system and the faith we place in the President. The Clinton impeachment brought scandalous and titillating details of a private sexual relationship into our homes and onto our America Online “Welcome” pages when the Starr Report was released to the public on September 11, 1998 (Busby 132).
Power in the Contemporary American Political System
What needs to be discussed is that which no one is talking about. Why has the Congress not moved to impeach the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush? This question is hinged on the discussion of the Clinton impeachment process. Some would argue that the invasion and occupation of Iraq are based on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but how does this invasion relate to the new power dynamics of the American political system? Why has the “independent” press been so reluctant to push for impeachment when ____% of the public as a poll cited in ____Harper’s week in review views impeachment as a viable option for ending the Bush administration’s continuous lack of clarity and transparency on the discrepancies of both the 9/11 attacks themselves and the following six years of foreign policy (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421).
Works Cited
Black, Charles L. Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook.
1974.
Brock, David. Blinded By The Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.
Crown Publishers, 2002.
Busby, Robert. Defending the American Presidency: Clinton and the Lewinsky Scandal.
Conason, Joe and Lyons, Gene. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign
to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Coulter, Ann H. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton.
Washinton: Regnery Publishing, 1998.
Kalb, Marvin. One Scandalous Story:
Tarnished American Journalism.
Kaplan, Leonard V. ed. and Beverly I. Morgan ed. Aftermath: The
and the Presidency in the Age of Political Spectacle. Mark V. Tushnet. “The
Constitutional Politics of the
University Press, 2001.
Labovitz, John R. Presidential Impeachment.
McLoughlin, Merrill ed. Michael R. Beschloss intro. The Impeachment and Trial of
President Clinton: The Official Transcripts, from the House Judiciary Committee
Hearings to the Senate Trial.
Merkl, Peter H. A Coup Attempt in
Constitutional Crisis.
Morris, Irwin, L. Votes, Money, and the
2002.
Posner, Richard A. An Affair of State.
Rozell, Mark J. ed. And Wilcox,
American Government.
Starr, Kenneth W. The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W.
Star on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair.
1998.
Thompson, Hunter S. The Great Shark Hunt: Gonzo Papers Vol.1 – Strange Tales from a
Strange Time. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1979.
Van Tassel, Emily Field and Paul Finkelman. Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary
1 comment:
man, this is really good...
I do think you have a bright future in writing or education.
Post a Comment