However, it did and it also became a plea to observe the Constitution concerning all members of Congress and, thus, is considered as a 1999 Article.
I have done some very heavy thinking and soul searching since your last email and, as tough as it is to do so, I must admit I have been wrong in part of my analysis of the Clinton situation.
I have never liked the manner in which the Starr investigation of Whitewater was expanded to include private aspects of Clinton’s life and still don’t agree with it. I could not see any relationship of any sexual allegations against Clinton other than Whitewater specifically as being of value to the nation. I still don’t.
However, a glaring fact was revealed by the investigation, whether it be right or wrong, the fact being that President Clinton did lie to the American people and did lie under oath. I am not concerned with his alleged obstruction of justice because the Jones’ case was not decided by his testimony but, instead, by the rule of the law concerning what does or does not constitute sexual haressment.
It is a constitutional requirement that wrong doing be investigated by Congress, not only when concerned with a president but, also, with any member of Congress or any other civil servant. The fact is Congress must make a decision, that is to determine guilt of having committed an impeachable offense, in this case, whether or not a ‘high crime’ or a ‘misdemeanor’ has been committed since we know it is not treason.
First, of course, the House had to determine whether President Clinton did commit an impeachable offense. The House did so although it may have been based on party politics instead of an exact definition derived from the letter of the law. At any rate, the indictment or impeachment process began and moved the case from the House to the Senate, the organization with sole responsibility for the actual trying of the case.
Just as I consider any politician who lies as lying under oath (an oath of office is, in my opinion, as valid as any oath given in any court of the land), I must now agree with the House, that their decision was the correct one.
But, I also must state I believe, as I have stated in many articles, that the same rules must be applied to all politicians who hold offices that are under constitutional impeachment provisions. (I state this as it becomes important as to the cowardice of the Senate.)
The Senate must make a decision, the decision being that either the offender is acquitted of charges or is found guilty. The constitution doesn’t state whether or not a guilty verdict leads to removal from office, only that ‘punishment’ (my word) can’t extend past removal from office. If I understand it correctly, civil courts can then indict if the determination is made there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment.
Because Clinton did lie (under oath of his office and while under oath in a court of law) and admitted to it, then the Senate must, and should, return a guilty verdict. That is the letter of the law.
Now, the reason the Senate is not likely to return a guilty verdict, or that many in the House might now be fearful of a guilty verdict or regret their decision to impeach , is they fear the impeachment process being applied to them when they are found to have lied, particular if the letter of the law considers the Oath of Office as valid an oath as the oath given in a court of law.
There is also this to think about. It was easy for members of the House to impeach in a sense as the final decision on guilt was not theirs but, instead, the Senate’s. What would their decision have been if the gun was at their heads, so to speak?
Would they have had the courage to impeach if it meant removing the President from office or would they have acted as the Senate is now acting? I wonder.
Once again, the bottom line is how it will affect each of them and the power of their respective parties politically, not whether they are upholding the Constitution of the United States.
It is, however, their sworn duty to do so and, should they not do so, they are as guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as Mr. Clinton. One might even conclude their actions as being against the best welfare of this nation, that they are not being faithful and loyal to the Constitution, to its preservation, nor the people of this nation. That, by definition, is treason.
In a very real sense, it is our freedom, our liberty, that is at stake if the Senate does not uphold the Constitution. Does it matter whether it is another country that rules and removes individual rights, or a Congress that has ceased upholding the Constitution and the resultant slow removal of individual rights (which has been going on now for eight decades that I know of)?
Additionally, if we uphold the impeachment provisions, then any member of Congress who has ever voted in favor of legislation benefiting a special interest group which has contributed huge amounts of money in return for favors has essentially taken a bribe. That is exactly what a bribe is and bribery is an impeachable offense.
Thus, another source of fear to act properly could be related to this - that more and more of us have been made aware of the impeachment process and have now read the Constitution
with the intent of understanding it as written, not as we were taught.
As an example, what if we, the people, should start demanding that an impeachable offense for members of Congress is a vote
for legislation that was against the best interests of the majority of the people while being solely for the benefit for the contributor/s?
Addemdum: Actually, the above is an impeachable offense as it is based on a bribe, which is a felony (high crime).
Anyway, I thank you for the time you have given me for another reason - it has revitalized my determination to do as much as I can in getting people to think and become involved in the political process.
Come to think of it, this could also be a very real fear of Congress. Even though they may speak of it as being a concern, is the involvement of the people what Washington
politicians really want, or would they rather have it stay as it has been, with them
virtually having a free hand at whatever they legislate?
In other words, does the Congress of the United States really want an informed, educated, involved citizenry or would they rather have the people remain at 50 percent illiteracy with
perhaps only one fourth of the population voting and the majority of those doing so not because of being well-informed but because they vote a straight ticket, no matter what?
Sincerely,