But, just exactly what requirements are they talking about? What are the constitutional guidelines in an impeachment case?
Well, gosh, there aren’t any other than the matter rests solely in the hands of, first, the House in determining whether or not an impeachment trial should be held, and, secondly, the Senate in holding an actual trial. And, of course, this means the matter is totally removed from the legal system as most of us know it.
Here are the applicable clauses from the Constitution, first, for the House: Article. I., Section.2., Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Then, for the Senate: Article I., Section.3., Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole
Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for the 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.
And, in defining punishment: Article 1., Section.3., Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
And, further in defining punishment: 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.
That’s it. The determination of what is an impeachable offense (excepting treason with is defined in the Constitution), therefore, rests in the hands of the House and the Senate. It’s too bad our forefathers didn’t define each offense clearly and
concisely with procedures for our present day legislators who operate solely in partisan patterns, and, therefore, free of potential potential discrimination.
Obviously, Republicans who have been in pursuit throughout President Clinton’s administration will define his lying under oath about Lewinsky as impeachable and strive for procedures to meet this end. But, is that a serious enough offense to
impeach and remove him from office according to the Constitution and the intent of our forefathers?
We know his acts aren’t treason and bribery. Those two concepts are well-defined, if not in the Constitution, in any dictionary of the English language.
So, that means his lying under oath about a sexual affair must be either ‘a high
crime’ or a ‘misdemeanor’.
Laws are based primarily on protecting our rights as individuals, and what is best for the individual in their pursuits of happiness. In other words, killing someone
might give one great pleasure but since that removes the life of another (takes away their God-given right to live), then it is illegal.
A person has the right to obtain any and all material goods he is capable of in his pursuit of happiness but not if it means taking away objects owned by another. Thus, stealing is illegal.
Each of us have individual rights outlined in the Constitution. Any attempt to remove those or adversely affect them is illegal. One of those is the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Impeachment is a trial even if it is the responsibility of the Senate. But how can it be fair with Republicans already set in their minds that Clinton should be removed from office?
Every act to date, every procedure approved, has been done along pure party lines. Republicans only approve the procedures that have been adopted. That is congruous with the intent of Republican party leaders throughout the entire sordid affair beginning way back when with Whitewater.
Reason must conclude the whole matter has been nothing more than a partisan effort that has disrupted this nation far too long. Not that our Congress is doing a good job at protecting our constitutional rights - it hasn’t and isn’t likely to - but the
matter of Mr. Clinton cannot be resolved by subjective thinking powered by partisan politics.
Nor should it be. When we have warring political parties determining anything that affects us all, you can bet it will generally result in harming most people and this nation. The reason for this is simple - the concern of our members of Congress is not the majority of the people but rests instead is what will best serve the party or, in many cases, specific special interests groups.
The majority in poll after poll has wanted the vendetta against Mr. Clinton stopped months ago. But, has Congress listened? Or, has Congress, instead, proceeded in a partisan fashion? Obviously, it has proceeded in a partisan fashion by ignoring the will of the people.
Without clear definitions and guidelines provideed in the Constitution, then shouldn’t our members of Congress rely on the will of the majority of the people? Isn’t that really their only legal, Constitutional recourse to define what is a 'high crime' or 'misdemeanor? Isn’t it their job to legislate in response to the will of the majority of the people?
To reiterate, the majority has not defined Mr. Clinton’s offenses as impeachable; therefore, without proper guidelines and definitions, and forgetting those fashioned by fanatical political partisans in times of great stress, the Senate must vindicate Mr. Clinton as a high crime or misdemeanor has not been committed as far as society as reflected by poll after poll believes.
That is the will of the people and this is still our country. Or, has the House and Senate determined (unknown to us, maybe in one of those behind-closed-door sessions they like so well) it is their country, that it is no longer is a Republic, that
the voice of the people doesn’t mean a darn thing?
And I guess we all know the answer to that.
One last question. If the Senate has approved its format for trying Mr. Clinton along party lines with the intent of loading the procedure so as to help the prosecution, then isn’t the trial already too biased to be valid?
Then, A2S4, states "...shall be removed..." However, there isn't actually a conflict since the word "shall" means "may" when the word "shall" could create a constitutional conflict. This has been upheld in several court cases, including the US Supreme Court case, Cairo & Fulton R.R. co. vs Hecht, 95 U.S. 170.