From: <IQuark2@aol.com>
To: <xfiles@mindspring.com>
Subject: RMA
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 1:13 PM

Subject: Starr
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 1998 22:48 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:RonDMoore">RonDMoore</A>

<<When a public official takes and oath to uphold the law they should be
scrutinized more than a private citizen. The appropriate punishment is at
least a resignation from the President, but we
all know that he would never do such a thing. Impeachment hearings should be
started, and if he is found guilty than impeach him, if not censure him. The
main point is that he is a PUBLIC OFFICIAL,  he takes an oath to uphold the
law, not break it. Lying under oath is breaking the law, simple as that.>>

If the law is the law is the law, and there's no flexibility, no regard for
circumstance or context whatsoever, then we might as well do away with judges
completely and replace them with computers that will robotically spit out
sentences at the push of a button.  But that is not justice.  Justice is not
served by the imposition of the maximum sentence in every case.  Justice is
not served by mindless enforcement of the rules without any
regard whatsoever for the  larger public good.  Justice is tempered by
compassion and mercy or it is simply despotism cloaked in democratic garb.

The basic concept of our entire judicial system requires that the degree of
punishment bear some relationship to the crime even when that crime is
committed by a public official.  Put simply, the punishment must fit the
crime.  Take for example, the case of one Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA).  He swore
to uphold the rules of the House and the law, but he knowingly sought to evade
and circumvent both.  He later admitted his transgressions (albeit under
tremendous pressure) and submitted himself to punishment by the House.  He
certainly could've been stripped of his office as Speaker and/or ejected from
the House itself, but it was determined that these would be too extreme.
Instead, he was censured and fined.  Now, I'm no fan of the Speaker, but I saw
this penalty as an appropriate response to the situation.  And at the time, I
seem to recall the entire Republican leadership declaring that censure
was a harsh and humiliating penalty to impose on a public official, not a get
out of jail free card as they're now claiming.

All I'm saying is that impeachment and removal from office should not be
imposed on a sitting president for anything less than a very, very serious
offense.  I fail to see any  actions by the President in Clinton/Lewinsky
which rise to the level of seriousness required to warrant the President's
removal.    His actions do warrant a public rebuke and possibly a fine, and
therefore those are the punishments he should be given.

<<Also, keep in mind that this is only the first salvo.  The more serious
charges are still coming, and if a case can be made for impeachment over this
(agreed, not exactly a slam dunk, but the case can be made), how much more
likely does impeachment become if the FBI file mess bears fruit?  Or the
Travel Office screwup?>>

We keep hearing this.  Supposedly Starr has all these silver bullets in his
gun and oooooh boy!  Just you wait until they come out!  Well, if he really
had something on Clinton, why did he spend the last 7 months focused almost
exclusively on a sex scandal?  And why did he choose to subpoena the President
only on the Lewinsky matter?  Why wasn't he called in and confronted with his
activities on Filegate, Travelgate or any other gate that
Starr is examining so diligently?  Perhaps the Independent Counsel was more
interested in playing "Gotcha!" than actually pursuing his mandate to
investigate serious crimes.

<<In 1974, high crimes and misdemeanors meant misleading the American people.
But since we want to know a little about what the framers of the Constitution
thought, I looked up a few quotes from The Federalist Papers, a document
written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, explaining the Constitution
when they were lobbying to pass it.  Here are some important quotes, with
citations, for those who want to check.
"The President of the United States would be liable to be   
impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high   
crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and afterwards be liable to   
prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."
		----Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper Number 69

"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 offences which   
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the   
abuse or violation of some public trust.  "  
		----Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper Number 65

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to   
obtain rulers for men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue   
to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to   
take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they   
continue to hold the public trust."

		----James Madison, Federalist Paper Number 57>>

Two comments:  The quotes you've selected only reinforce my opinion that the
original intent of the impeachment clause was to make it a rare occurence
which would only be invoked as the result of a grave offense on the part of
the president.  The drafters did not say that any transgression must trigger
impeachment, indeed, they seem to clearly suggest that impeachment should be
reserved for only the most serious offenses, those which, "proceed
from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or
violation of some public trust."

Second, while I have a great regard for the Federalist Papers, they should not
confused with the actual Constitution itself.  The arguments and positions of
Madison & Hamilton are instructive, but they should not be allowed to (as I'm
sure Justice Scalia would put it) change the clear and plain meaning of the
text.  The clear and plain meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the
phrase "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors,"
is that they refer to unspecified transgressions which belong on a par with
treason and bribery.  That's the Constitutional standard, and it's the only
one we should be dealing with.

And to those that argue, "He's shown bad judgement and should go," or "We've
lost faith in him and he should go," or any of the other variations on this
theme I would like to say these seem exceedingly poor reasons to remove a
sitting president.  Presidents have shown incredibly bad judgement (Vietnam,
Iran-Contra, the Bay of Pigs) and they have also lost the faith of the
American people (Johnson during Vietnam, Hoover during the Depression, Carter
during the Iran Hostage Crisis).  We do not live in a parliamentary system
where the government may be brought down after a vote of no-confidence.  Our
system permits removal from office only in extreme circumstances, not for
nebulous dissatisfactions on the part of the Congress or the people.  (And if
the polls are to be believed at all, they show that the majority of the public
has not lost faith in Clinton's ability to govern in any
case.)