By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
September 29, 1998
Rep. Henry Hyde announced yesterday that the House Judiciary Committee will meet in open session next week to begin consideration of an "inquiry of impeachment." This quickly escalated the debate on what is an "impeachable offense. For their part, liberal Democrats intensified their drumbeat opposition to the notion that ANYTHING Clinton has done involving Monica Lewinsky - perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power is "impeachable."
For its part, U.S. News and World Report began its lead article, "Impeachment Politics" with the following: "Forget sex. Forget lies. Forget videotape. Forget redactions, the Linda Tripp tapes, Ken Starr, Al Gore, Richard Gephardt, Henry Hyde, John Conyers and all the bit players on the Judiciary Committee. From now to Election Day there’s only one story line: Clinton versus Gringrich."
For months Speaker Gingrich has been a model of decorum, even to the point of cramming a resolution down the throats of angry conservatives that muzzled them on the floor of the House. No member can say anything negative about the President of the United States from the floor. When conservatives and members of the media were making statements about the US bombing of the Sudan and Afghanistan being a "Wag the Dog" or "Lewinsky’s War" - it was Speaker Newt Gingrich that stopped the talk with a firm announcement that America’s enemies should not think our arguments among ourselves meant we were weak.
So, what’s with the sudden attacks on Newt Gingrich? The Democrats have made this mistake twice in a row - in the Elections 1994 and in 1996. Those attacks led to a Republican controlled congress.
U.S. News reports that the "To spur Democratic turnout, Clinton has decided to focus his wrath on Gingrich - the political archenemy he’s bested before, most spectacularly during the government shutdown three years ago."
Unfortunately for the Democrats, any mention of the government shut-down today will remind the American people of Clinton being serviced with oral sex by Monica while he was on the telephone with members of Congress supposedly making important national decisions. The government shut-down isn’t what it used to be - as recently as August 16th.
Does any of this sordid mess rise to the level of "impeachable offenses?" Let’s talk first about what the word "impeachment" meant as used in the Constitution of the United States. My 1842 Webster Dictionary defines "impeachment" as: "a calling to account; arraignment; especially of a public officer for mal-administration. Censure; accusation, a calling in question to purity of motives or the rectitude of conduct as, an impeachment of motives or judgment." My modern World Book dictionary defines "Impeach" as a verb which means "to accuse a public officer of wrong conduct during office before a competent tribunal."
Somehow, thanks to the media, we are now having a big discussion about what is "impeachable" conduct? What, in 1998, if anything is "rectitude" or rightness, of conduct for a public official? Are we saying that anything short of major felonies, which might call for imprisonment, is OK in our public officials?
Remember that the only persons in our system of government that can decide this issue is the Congress of the United States of America. The Supreme Court has no constitutional authority in this matter. The President cannot force his definition on the Congress and radio and TV talk show hosts and their guests are not even mentioned in the Constitution, so their definitions are meaningless.
The Federalist Papers deal directly with the provision in the Constitution giving the Senate the authority to try impeachments sent to it by the House of Representatives. Alexander Hamilton accurately describes the process we are going through today in The Powers of the Senate, the 65th Federalist Paper which was published in the New York Packet, on March 7, 1788. "A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. "
In spite of the archaic English, the concept is abundantly clear. An impeachable offense is misconduct by a public official that "relates chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." Who decides that? The people’s house decides if the conduct the President is accused of is an injury to American society. The Senate then decides if the President actually is guilty of the conduct he is accused of. If the House impeaches, and the Senate convicts, the President can be removed from office by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. After removal from office THEN the private citizen former president may be indicted and tried by the Judiciary system.
Hamilton went on to say, "The prosecution of them, (i.e. offenses) for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
"The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."
In other words, can a group of elected members of the House of Representatives and Senate EVER be expected to have sufficient neutrality towards the accused to judge fairly? If reprehensible conduct in a public official is ignored, Hamilton suggests, society is injured. If a public official is publicly accused of reprehensible conduct but there is no proof the official actually did what political enemies are accusing him of, society is injured.
In the debate now taking place, every effort is being made by Clinton supporters to injure the reputations of past presidents, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, by accusations which were investigated for 7 years, but never proved. On the other hand, the Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "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."
A High Crime is basically a felony. Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, all of which the Starr Report claims Bill Clinton committed, are felonies. A "misdemeanor" is not a felony. My 1842 Webster Dictionary defines a "misdemeanor" as stated by Judge Blackstone, the great English judge as follows: "Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but, in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omission of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanor." The definition in law was defined as "Any crime less than a felony. Synonyms for a misdemeanor are "misdeed, misconduct, misbehavior, fault, trespass, transgression."
It would appear to me, from the President’s own testimony, and his public statements, that he has described "misdeeds." Should he be impeached? Or censured? There is no Constitutional provision for censure. That is merely an expression of opinion. If we adhere to the Constitution, the Congress will vote down or for the impeachment in the House, or vote to convict or not convict in the Senate.
The decision on which way it will go will NOT be made by daily TV, radio and newspaper polls. It will be made on November 3, 1998 when every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate seats will be voted on. It will be made by people like you and me casting ballots - not by lawyers who argue over what the words "is" or "sex" mean in legal jargon. The decision will be made, hopefully, by people who understand "The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs," not by those in the media or call-in talk shows who are tracking polls daily and then making decisions based on the emotions of the moment because of attacks on either Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com