Readers' Comments on Legal News

JURIST invites readers to comment on the legal news stories featured on JURIST. Readers can also review comments already received on the following topics: 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
The Impeachment of the President
  • The clearly partisan nature of this process has damaged my faith in our system of government. The disrespect shown to the American public and their opinions is startling. Both parties are being made out to look foolish. The Democrats are made to look foolish and powerless by the inability of the party and the president, the most powerful leader in the free world allow this to go so far. The Republican party will lose its public support by not representing the wishes of the public.

    Perhaps our leaders have forgotten that they rule with our consent. The actions being played out today in the Senate are not being done with the consent of the people. We are a nation that claims freedom. We claim to be a country where the individual's voice is heard by our leaders. This process is being corrupted by a Senate and House that have turned a deaf ear to the will of the people. In the hope of destroying a man they are destroying a sacred office, a nation, and, more importantly, they are destroying a belief. They are destroying Democracy. This impeachment is the overturning of the will of the people. Democracy is being destroyed on the Senate floor.

    For the sake of our nation's future, for the power of our leaders to come I pray the Senate fails in its mission to impeach our President. The polls are two to one against impeachment that should be enough. Not for a love of the man, but for a love of the office and the nation it serves, I pray the Senate listens to the people.

    Kerri Dowd
    Queens Village, New York

  • The really amazing thing to me is how many people have sold their souls for the President, with apparently nothing under the sun that can cause them to waiver in their support. Every single argument for not impeaching him at first, and now for not removing him from office, doesn't hold water. There's the "It's all about sex" argument, then the "everybody else does it", and "it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment", along with "the Republicans have always hated him (vast right-wing conspiracy)."

    One never hears these people talk about principle. What about the importance of the leader of our country obeying the laws, not to mention upholding the laws, which he has sworn to do? What about the deliberate, calculated lies under oath before the grand jury, after even his advisers and supporters warned him to tell the truth? This premeditated lie by such a high official is so egregious that to allow him to remain in office would be a black mark on our generation and even our system of government. Premeditated murder is worse than second-degree murder and punished more severely for good reason - the perpetrator planned the cold-blooded killing of his victim. Clinton's lies may at first have been out of shock or embarassment, but the continued lying, even under oath(!) shocks the senses.

    Senator Byrd put it well when he mentioned the president's egregious display of shameless arrogance, referring to the pep rally held just after the impeachment. He followed it up with "...the likes of which I haven't seen." I haven't either. Who has? What is even more shocking is the numbers of blind followers marching in time behind their Pied Piper. One wonders, what would it take?

    Ronald Blachly
    Jonesboro, Arkansas

  • We hear so much "expert" commentary regarding the logistics, the political implications, the legalities and lastly, the morality of the Presidents actions. All carefully weighed against a document drafted over 220 years ago.

    We could all argue for centuries to come as to our personal views regarding these facets. I on the other hand, would like to keep it hopelessly simple, simple enough for our children to comprehend in the next revisions of their history books.

    A President of the United States has overwhelming responsibilities, more so than any college professor or legal analyst. Yet, if these people were caught having sex in their office, on company time, with an assistant of Monica's caliber, dismissal, resignation or termination would be the obvious outcome.

    It is painfully apparent that all the "experts" have conveniently dismissed this simple fact of life in America, and somehow decided, that the President, with all his obligations to his country, could somehow be above simple discipline and termination for his actions, when they themselves, knowingly, would be looking for another job.

    The President of the United States owes his country, his countries children much more than an apology, more than a bill to pay for legal fees, he owes his country courage, he owes his country honesty, and lastly, he owes his country justice.

    We have all seemed to have lost sight of the RIGHT thing to do, amidst all the partisan hoop-la and propaganda. What our children will learn from this mess in history books, is that their parents were more concerned with their party's outcome, their validation of congressional opinion, or even worse, how much one has to pay for sex at work to be ignored by ones peers.

    I love my country, I would live nowhere else, and yet, I am without a doubt, embarrassed to sadness, that my children will learn of this self fulfilling tragedy, by our President, and not be proud, of the greatest nation the earth has ever seen....

    Kenneth L. Hodges
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado

  • Before all the Chicken Littles of the land rise up in public indignation to castigate those dense Republicans, consider, if you will, a few points:

    1. Congress is not elected to reflect the views of the American people. A Congressperson is elected to represent their respective districts, and, to act in the best interest of the United States of America. The fact that public opinion polls reflect that "Americans" oppose impeachment reflects that those polled in whatever areas feel this way. The 1998 popular vote (not weighted within districts) actually tallied a 48 - 47% advantage to Republicans. Should this mean that the decision was proper, since the American People voted Republican more than the American People voted Democrat? I hope not.

    2. Thank God, public opinion is not the defining characteristic for public policy or individual actions. Were it so, the original 13 colonies would not have challenged England, Florida would not be a state (President Monroe's and General Jackson's behavior towards the Florida Indians and Spain were not looked on favorably by a majority of New England and the Mid Atlantic states - where the majority of Americans lived), slavery would still be legal and forget about civil rights, women would not be able to vote, affirmative action would never have been adopted, smog limits and limits on lead in gasoline would not have been adopted, Nixon most likely would have served two terms (the public supported him right up until the vote was imminent at which point he resigned,) we would have used unilateral force against Iran during the hostage crisis, the Soviet Union would still be in existence, and, most importantly, William Jefferson Clinton would have dropped out of the New Hampshire Primary in 1992 after Gennifer Flowers surfaced. Should public opinion and public approval dictate our actions? I certainly hope not. We might just be a much different country.

    3. The Impeachment process is working exactly as it should. The House by its very unruliness and ease of election was assumed to be partisan (Article #65 of the Federalist Papers.) The Senate, while not quite the body of contentment some think it is, is by nature of the difficulty of a statewide election, less partisan and exihibits more decorum and respect. This was anticipated by the Framers and both houses were designed to allow for exactly this process.

    4. This newly created "partisan" war is not new. Go back and read how much more volatile, politically we were during the late 1700's, 1800s mid 1900's and early 1980's. Partisan volatility is not new and it is not unhealthy. If we were all in one accord there would have to be some compelling reason - like fear, tyranny or a caste system - total unification would be a symptom of a dangerous precedent or actual system in place.

    Just some thoughts. It is not really as bad as we think, nor as wrong as some of us believe.

    William Simpson
    Washington, D.C.

  • The founding fathers anticipated the danger of passionate partisanship when they established the separation of powers and required a 2/3 majority for conviction for impeachment. The facts indicate that their fear was not misplaced. Including Clinton, a President serving with a Congress where the opposition has the majority in both houses in place for 2 Congressional terms has a 60% CHANCE OF BEING IMPEACHED. This has only happened 5 times since right before the Civil War when the modern Republican and Democratic parties became preeminent. Johnson, Nixon (would have been impeached), and Clinton were impeached under these circumstances. Eisenhower (who worked real hard at bi-partisanship and was a very popular war hero) and Bush (an experienced Washington hand) were the Presidents who were not impeached under these conditions. No other President has served under these conditions (typically at least one house is of the President's party) and no other one has been impeached - no coincidence I'm sure. My point is not so much about partisan political motivation (which the Founders anticipated), but rather the arbitrariness by which the impeachment solution has been applied historically. When the impeachment remedy only seems to apply when both houses are led by the opposition, it indicates that the process is unfairly applied. The Founders were afraid partisanship would lead to the abuse of impeachment, so they made the conviction hurdle very high. The OIC under Ken Starr has proven to be a very dangerous tool in lowering the indictment side of that hurdle. If it continues in its present form, it could destabilize our form of government, and the Executive will come to serve at the pleasure of the legislature - clearly not what the Founders had in mind.

    Ralph Finos
    Holliston, Massachusetts

  • I am very distressed with the current situation regarding the President's difficulties. As a retired Prosecutor I am extremely upset with Ken Starr and his total lack of integrity regarding the process. We were able to observe a very obsessed individual pursue a vendetta, the likes of which have not been observed since McCarthy. The only thing that made his performance look even partially acceptable was the unbelievable conduct of Rep. Delay of Texas. I make no claims of being an angel as a prosecutor, but I can honestly state that I treated convicted felons with more respect than these individuals have shown the President of the United States.

    As a registered Republican I can state that I am very concerned with the direction the party is going, and will find it very difficult to forget or forgive this petty display of revenge. I never thought that I would be driven to the Democratic party, but this group of rabid, morality deprived, moralists have managed to edge me in that direction.

    Michial W. Nunn
    Las Vegas, Nevada

  • Are we to be a nation of permissive lies - why don't we take Clinton at his word! What he spoke 24 years ago - as a lawyer:
    "No question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense.... If a president of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign."
          唯ill Clinton on President Nixon, Arkansas Democrat
             Gazette    , Aug. 6, 1974.
    I rest my case and I think we should "read his lips"!!

    Joanne Adams
    San Diego, California

  • I think Mr. Clinton, as a matter of constitutional obligation, now has to stand trial in the Senate. The nation needs, in my view, to see an orderly process of law at this juncture. We need to watch the constitution and our government functioning according to law after last week's circus in the House.

    I think Mr. Clinton's tawdry actions speak for themselves and do not rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors." I expect and the Senate will reach that judgement. I also think Mr. Clinton should answer to the law (without pardon) on any civil charges pending when he leaves office.

    Robert Philbin
    Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

  • The problem: If the president's trial goes to a vote many if not most Democrat senators will be over a barrel. A guilty vote on the main charge of perjury endorses removal from office. A vote of not guilty would be dishonest and demeaning to many if not most Democrat senators, who know that the president did in fact perjure himslef, never mind the legalistic gobbledegook. The solution -- abstention. It's a perfectly legitimate finesse: The Constitution gives each senator one vote, but there's no requirement to exercise it. The potential result: all 55 Republicans vote to convict, most if not all Democrats abstain. Those who want to cast a vote either way do so. No problem unless 12 Democrats vote with the Republicans. (Not gonna happen.) The trial is over. The president remains in office. The Republicans holler foul, but the Democrats are comfortable with their consciences. At the same time, the failure of Clinton's own party to lend him affirmatilve support is itself a significant rebuke. And -- if the Republicans knew in advance of the trial that the Democrats would abstain en masse, thereby boycotting on behalf of the country the disproportionate, unappealable and unpopular punishment of removal from offce, a motion for some less Draconian punishment could suddenly look attractive enough to head off a trial. Really.

    Richard Topkins
    Greenbrae, California

  • I along with millions of other voters am deeply disturbed that Congress has voted for Impeachment - I thought they were representing what WE THE PEOPLE wanted. Obviously they have decided that they know what is best - I will be beating the pavement for any Democrat candidate who runs this next election. Join in.

    Wendy Hale
    Columbia, Missouri

  • I have been watching the last hours of this impeachment debate on CNN and have come to the conclusion that we, the American people are on the verge of being ruled by authoritarians! America has always been a government of the People, by The People, and For the People, but the Republican party is now turning authoritarian rule upon us no better than that afforded the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. How dare they deny us the right to have our voices heard on the floor of Congress? Since when does one party have the right to allow what they approve of come the floor of the People's House of Representatives?

    WE THE PEOPLE want our voices heard. That is the job of our representatives, not to use some parliamentary procedure to quash to voice of the People. If this vote on impeachment goes through without a vote on censure, we as a nation have degraded ourselves to the level of a third world dictatorship. We can look forward to rule from now on by his majesty DeLey! It is time for a second American Revolution! No Impeachment without representation!

    Lonnie Raleigh Cross III
    LaGrange, Georgia

  • For 24 years I have taught U.S. Government to high school seniors. Now, I have to try to explain to these teenagers why it is OK for the President of the United States to lie under oath, but they are expected to tell the truth. I have always been asked why people would tell the truth in court if they thought it would hurt either them or a friend. I have always responded that besides being the right thing to do, there were also stiff penalties for people who commit perjury. Now, my seniors are saying - yeah penalties for everybody but the President. I think that the young people of this country have a better handle on this situation than most of the House.

    For the first time in 24 years, I am ashamed to be a U.S. Government teacher. I try to teach my students that they must be part of the political process because they are the future. But, this year they have been so cynical and I can't blame them. Many have also tried what I have been terming the "Clinton" defense when they are asked a question. They split hairs on terminology and semantics. Mr. Clinton being allowed to stay in office will set a dangerous precedent for any government in the future. In education we often talk of "high expectations". If a teacher expects great things from his/her students, he/she will usually get great things from the students. The same is also true of politics. For years we have allowed and been satisfied with mediocrity in both the Congress and the White House. It is time to draw the line. Our officials should obey the laws -- it is as simple as that. If they don't, they should be removed from office. That will then be a deterrant for future government officials. Because of all of Bill Clinton's misleading statements, why should anyone believe anything he says. Saddam Hussein has made the US the laughing stock of the world. For years he has been "playing Clinton like a fiddle." He denies the UN inspectors access to an area, Clinton "threatens", moves troops (at an enormous expense), and then when they are in place Saddam says OK I'll let the inspectors back in. I cannot believe that people don't see this as Saddam's little game with Clinton. As much as I would not vote for Al Gore on his own to be President, I feel that Al Gore as President now, would be a much better scenerio than having Clinton remain in office.

    Anne-Marie
    Phoenix, Arizona

  • When the chief Law Enforcement officer of our nation commits perjury, even if it's about something as personal as sex, he breaches the fundamental principle of our judicial system--when you are under oath, you're compelled to tell the truth. We can't allow a President to commit perjury and remain in office. Such conduct completely undermines the foundation of our legal system. This is every bit as injurious to the state of the Union as treason. What kind of precedent does this set? What message does it send to children or to society in general? You don't really have to tell the truth under oath if you're popular enough, or if you can manage to convice the nation that the country will fall apart at the seams without you at the helm. These "learned" professors suggest that as a pragmatic matter, the country should be spared the "agony" of a drawn out impeachment hearing in the Senate. First of all, if there's any agony, it's not because of a Congress which does i! ts duty in pressing for impeachment, it's because of a President so arrogantly fixated on holding his power that he won't do the honorable thing, which is to put up his hand and say "I committed a grave foul, I must resign from this office." What noble cause does Clinton serve by clinging desperately to his office? It's not for the "good of the nation"--it's pure arrogance, pure hubris, pure naked lust for power. Does he think that Al Gore couldn't handle the job as Chief Executive? We have a perfectly viable replacement, so we needn't fear as a nation if our President is removed from office for what, to me, are clearly high crimes and misdemeanors. (And incidentally, the law professors' letter makes quite an assumptive leap in interpreting that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is meant only to amplify what they call the "core" elements of treason and bribery as grounds for impeachment. To me, it seems more likely that this refers to other breaches of conduct not covered u! nder treason and bribery.) In most ways, I am a Liberal, and I'm concerned about what happens to the Liberal agenda. But I think these Liberal apologists who are grasping at straws and splitting legal hairs (and not even effectively) to save a President who has clearly transgressed beyond the boundaries of acceptable conduct in office are doing that agenda a great disservice. Let Al Gore carry on Bill Clinton's positive legacy. But we must cut Bill Clinton loose, or we'll be branded as hypocrites for years to come. The quality of his crimes are essentially the same as those of Nixon. We're talking about lying, suborning perjury, abuse of power. It's not an impeachable offense to have consensual sex or even to commit adultery. It's not an impeachable offense to even lie; politicians lie from time to time, we've all come to expect it. But it is an impeachable offense to commit perjury when he's the Chief Law Enforcement officer of the land. That's a crime that must dis! qualify him from office, no matter how good a President he's been or how popular he is. There's no way around that. If he's really a good President, he'll realize what he must do and step down voluntarily. But if he doesn't have the honor to go gracefully, we must remove him. Otherwise, we might as well throw out our entire judicial system. And the Presidency itself will be forever tarnished because it will henceforth have absolutely no integrity requirement.

    Garret Swayne
    Canoga Park, California

  • I can't believe that the elected officials in Washington are so arrogant that they would continue on with this travesty of Justice, knowing the majority of the American people are opposed to it. Do I say No to impeachment? You bet I do. I think that they have forgotten they're there to represent people from their districts, not to do whatever they want. I can't wait to vote them out next time. I think this whole process has been shameful. Shame, Shame, Shame.

    Marcia Ramirez
    Palm Bay, Florida

  • Livingston when confronted with his own infidelities says that he did not lie under oath. Which just means that he did not have the opportunity to lie under oath. Clinton had the opportunity to lie under oath because of the Paula Jones suit. What I would like to know is if Mr. Livingston contributed money or directed money to the Paula Jones Suit. If he did then he should say that he cannot vote one way or the other. Further I would like to know if the Republican National Committee provided money and material support to the Paula Jones suit. I believe that every Rep. that votes to impeach should be asked if they contributed towards the Paula Jones suit as they leave the Chamber.

    David McCreedy
    Alexandria, Virginia

  • I have no problem with the fact that our President is an adulterer. That's just the "man" in him. He's human, afterall. My problem is that he "lied" about it, over and over again. The worst part was that he lied under oath. Our judicial system will never work if our top leaders are allowed to ignore the law and get away with it. He is supposed to be setting an example for our nation. What kind of example is he setting? Certainly not one that I would want my children to follow. If he is allowed to get away with Perjury, our nation and it's judicial system is doomed.

    Lisa A. Peters
    Fayetteville, North Carolina

  • If I had millions of dollars and no supervision, I could investigate every member of Congress to see whether they had violated these principles and the results would probably empty both houses of Congress, especially on the "bribery" charge (the Republicans keep blocking campaign finance reform for a reason).

    I think Clinton's behavior was unbelievably crass. But much more importantly, I see a democratic election being overturned by the sheer will and arrogance of a tiny handful of elitist men who do not represent the will of 70-80% of this country and haven't got a legal leg to stand on. A lie is a lie, whether or not it took place before a grand jury, and lying about an extramarital affair is no sufficient reason to overturn an election.

    My nation, the former model of democracy, is now an oligarchy. Why do I get the sinking feeling I'm living in China?

    I am absolutely delighted by JURIST's work in this regard, especially publishing the [law professors'] letter on line. Bravo.

  • I feel that president Clinton's Impeachment procedures should pass in the House, but the Senate will only give him censure. We shouldn't impeach him beacause he knows more about the affairs in Iraq than Al Gore does. I think that if the house passes the Impeachment Procedure that it will scare Clinton enough to stop his reckless behavior.

    Concerning the bombings in Iraq on the day the House was to make a decision wasn't just a distraction, this was our only chance to bomb them, considering that the Islam holy month of Ramadan is close at hand, and we can't give Saddam enough time to gather enough forces to pose a threat to national security.

    Cody Jones
    Churubusco, Indiana

  • Regardless of polls or what is popular, we must do what is right. Clinton lied to the nation, his cabinet and under oath in a court of law. This was admitted by his legal council, cabinet members and members of his own party.

    Truth and justice is the foundation of our courts. If we disregard these principles we weaken the institution. By following the rule of law, we affirm the foundation of the Constitution for generations to come. The Congress must dispense their duty, no matter what the politcal consequences. They for the good of our future must impeach and removal the President.

    Rod Strayer
    Churubusco, Indiana

  • What is the purpose of a revolution? To overthrow a government. What is the purpose of the Republican Revolution? To overthrow this government. If the Judiciary Committee, the Republican-held House of Representatives, the (Not Very) independent counsel and the media disregard the apparent wishes of the nation and affect the national health by damaging this man and the Presidency -- isn't that a revolution? What are my fellow citizens doing about it? As Jerry Rubin once said, "Vote with your feet, vote in the street." See ya there.

    Russ Bralley
    Bristol, Virginia

  • I have been following the impeachment hearings. The Democrat minority has missed a very important opportunity. When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, he signed into law the legislation favoring a woman's right to an abortion. When journalists questioned Reagan about his signature on the legislation, he said that he personally believed abortion was wrong, but he had an obligation to do the will of the people. A majority of Californians supported the abortion legislation.

    The Republicans claim that they must do what is right even if the majority of the people disagree with them. I ask you, if Ronald Reagan can get away with signing into law a woman's right to an abortion and still become the leader of the conservative republican movement, why can't moderate republicans "do the will of the people" by voting against impeachment and still remain loyal republicans? Somebody needs to call attention to this!

    Ron Bengston
    Vista, California

  • Clinton's best defense now would be to offer none. He should simply rest on the facts as presented to the judiciary committee and grand jury. There is no need to bring forth any witnesses, as there is little disagreement about the facts of the case. Clinton should say that he has instructed his attorneys to drop all his technical defenses. The simple fact is that he lied to the American people, even if he did not commit perjury. The Senate should decide quickly that this does not merit removal from office.

    Robert Van Der Velde
    Tallassee, Alabama

  • We the people of this nation have failed our elected leader and ourselves. We ought not to have required him or allowed him to testify about civil matters while a sitting president. We ought to protect fully the name, dignity, respect, and power of the president to represent us with our friends and against our enemies. We ought to provide this provision regardless of our politics and regardless of whether the incumbent is indeed truly and personally worthy of such protection. The nation is worthy. The current process demeans and enervates the office of the president, and, to my mind, places the country in peril unnecessarily, and I fear the results may be far worse than we can imagine.

    If there is a civil matter, it must wait until a sitting president is no longer in office. President Clinton should never have been forced to testify about a civil matter, period. I believe that if impeachment is brought against our president for personal offenses, especially when he has well represented our interests at home and abroad, it would be a great tragedy and we are all at fault for allowing it to occur.

    Suzanne Gilmore
    Miami, Florida

  • I am writing to express my opinions regarding the impeachment process. Bill Clinton was elected by a majority of the American people. Month after month, poll after poll strongly suggests that the American populus does not want the President to be impeached. Yet [Congressman] Hyde continues to ignore us. My constitutional rights are being stripped away. How can a small committee, or house, or senate reverse the outcome of an election without involving the people who elected these people in the first place?

    I do not want puritanical Republicans to make my choices for me. Put the matter in the hands of the American people by placing the question on a ballot!

    Patricia Gorham
    Hamilton, New Jersey

  • I think he should be impeached. Perjury (lying, misleading, delaying), witness tampering (even potential witnesses), being evasive in an answer to congress is a misuse of the office and ARE sufficient to be considered high crimes or misdemeanor. On top of that [not impeaching] will set back the progress the country has made in civil rights (especially women's rights) and sexual harassment. Despite the legal definitions and interpretations he has demeaned himself, the office and the country. Censure is not sufficient and means nothing.

    George Long
    Rural Valley, Pennsylvania

  • The consequences of impeachment of President Clinton are now becoming obvious. Growing public divisiveness, anger, and extreme partisanship. Discussions of the legalities and impeachability of his offenses are "Fiddling While Rome Burns". Condemnation and censure of his actions, and return to the real business of the country is the way to extinguish the flames, not by pouring on the gasoline of a Senate trial. This is the time to see who in Congress will put Country above Politics.

    John Simons
    Cheyenne, Wyoming

  • President Clinton should be impeached. The acts, while themselves simply disgusting, occurred while under investigation for similar offenses. It is clear to me that he not only lied, thereby committing perjury, but that he expects to "get away with it". It is a clear abuse of power.

    Paul W. Baures
    Manhattan, Kansas

  • I would like to express the feeling of many, please vote to censure and move on this week. The two things that scares me the most about this vote. Is that we will have to go through what could be a trial that will be 10 times bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial that was only bad for this nation. The second is this feeling that the president might change his mind and step-down to save his family from going through the trail even knowing that the legal case against him is very weak. That will put Al Gore in the head seat with good times behind him for 2001.

    Where is the family value of peace and forgiveness being demonstrated by the House during this Christmas season?....

    David Fuqua
    Little Rock, Arkansas

  • ....The lines are drawn: Nobody is convincing anybody of anything. To quote a republican president: The business of America is business. If the republicans choose to negate the democratic vote of the people of this country for president, ignoring polls and elections results, I suggest we hit them where they live: Should the popularly elected president of the United States of America be subjected to a partisan vote to remove him from office, thereby negating the vote (and current opinion of the people), Friday December 18, 1998 should be a national SICK day, a blue day, a no work day. Additionally, I urge that no one shop for Christmas presents, buy groceries or gasoline or stamps of lottery tickets. In other words, SHUT DOWN, as the republicans shut down our government the last time they decided to flex.

    Pat Walsh
    Oakville, Missouri

  • Mr. Clinton should be Impeached. The House should do their duty and vote Impeachment so this issue can be sent to the Seante. There should not be any Censure because it means nothing and can be expunged by a later Congress. It's all about the sanctity of the Law and that we are all equal under the Law. Mr. Clinton broke the law...he should pay the penalty and that is Impeachment.

    Aniece McCulloch
    Ventura, California

  • Leave President Clinton alone. He has done great things for this country (it's the economy, stupid). The Republicans simply want to embarrass and humiliate him. The republican agenda is not good for the country. It took six years and 40 million dollars for you yahoos to come up with something on Bill. With that time and money lack of supervision, what do you suppose we could come up with on you. I am sure you would feel differently if Ken Starr turned on you or your family. What happened to White Water. Nothing! This country is now under the dictatorship of Ken Starr and his band of Republican hooligans who seem to care nothing for this country. They just want to win at anyone and everyone's expense. I will never vote Republican again. I used to vote for the person. Now my vote will be to keep Republicans out of office. The Republicans were disappointed in the last election. Impeach Clinton and you will think it was a picnic.

    Debbie Baker
    Little Rock, Arkansas

  • I am definately for impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. America deserves the very best in her leadershp positions, and I really think that by Mr. Clinton's actions, he has brought the office of the Presidency to an all time low....

    Carolyn Pillsbury
    Meredith, New Hampshire

  • I have never in my life paid much attention to the what was taking place in the government. I do vote, but pretty much feel that our elected officials do whatever they want when they get to congress and this "Impeachment" just proves my point. Almost all the polls I have seen show that the American People do NOT want this, yet, as usual, the congress is doing whatever it wants. I thought they were suppose to represent the people?!?

    L. Harrigan
    Risingsun, Ohio

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Supreme Court Holds Vehicle Searches at Routine Traffic Stops Unconstitutional: Knowles v. Iowa
  • Professor Burkoff's analysis hits the mark. While it was gratifying to have the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously affirm the existence of certain privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, one should not get too excited about an opinion that, in the main, repeats concepts that the Court had established in earlier cases.

    The Chief Justice, quoting from Robinson, explained that the right to search flows from the custodial nature of the arrest. A custodial arrest involves danger to an officer due to the "extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station". That factor is simply not present when a citation is issued. It had always been my understanding that it was the ride to the stationhouse that triggered the right to search.

    It is true that such a rule allows an officer to essentially circumvent the warrant requirement by making the decision to take into custody rather than issue a citation, but the Court has given us other examples of when it will permit the exercise of such discretion, Whren v Ohio being one of the most recent examples.

    What might we see in the future? In those states that grant an officer the discretion to take into custody or issue a citation, the officer will take the driver into custody whenever the officer wants to search the driver and the vehicle. In many instances the custodial arrest will simply be a "pretext" to search where the officer could not otherwise search. But based upon the Court's analysis in Whren I do not think that the court will care about the subjective reason for the decision as long as the state law permits the officer to effect the arrest. There is nothing in the Knowles decision that leads me to believe that the Court is looking for a Ricci - type case to hold that trivial offenses cannot result in full custodial arrests. Knowles was a small blip on the Fourth Amendment radar screen which became a target case to be closely followed simply because most of us could not understand how the Court could reach any decision other than the one it did, but concerned that it just might reach some other interpretation.

    Dave Steno
    Professor
    Ferris State University
    School of Criminal Justice

  • Knowles is obviously a win for Fourth Amendment privacy rights. If Iowa's position had been upheld, any driver stopped for any traffic infraction would be subject to a full-scale search of his or her car, even though the officer has no intention of making an arrest.

    The paradox remaining after Knowles is that the police have an incentive to make custodial arrests for trivial traffic or ordinance violations in order to perform searches incident to arrest. I believe the Court intended to preemptively avoid this problem last term when it granted cert in Ricci v. Arlington Heights, a case that was supposed to present the issue of whether the police could make a custodial arrest for a non-jailable, non-breach-of-the-peace offense. Unfortunately, the Court dumped the case after oral argument.

    If the Court had decided Ricci and had held that trivial offenses cannot result in full custodial arrests (as Justice Stewart suggested in his concurrence in Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 266-267 (1973)), the paradox in Knowles would not exist. Hopefully, a replacement for Ricci is somewhere in the pipeline.

    Dave Moran
    Adjunct Professor of Law
    Wayne State University Law School

  • Not to minimize the significance of this decision, but the symbolic value of Knowles v. Iowa (i.e. there are indeed limits to a police officer's power to search cars and people in cars) may be much more important than its practical impact. In any situation where an officer possesses the lawful discretion to make an arrest (most car stops) and either (1) chooses to arrest, or (2) delays that decision long enough to search first, the Knowles decision is simply inapplicable. In hindsight, the officer's mistake in Knowles was probably that he issued the ticket too soon! Nonetheless, given the Court's typical tolerance of even the most egregious of Fourth Amendment activity -- including pretext searches (Whren v. US, 517 US 806 (1996))! -- it is very comforting to discover that the Supreme Court -- unanimously, too -- can occasionally come across a search it doesn't like.

    John Burkoff
    Professor of Law
    University of Pittsburgh

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Law Professors' Letter Opposing Impeachment...
  • I'm not surprised one could find over 400 law professors in this country in whose judgment perjury is not impeachable "in certain circumstances".

    I wonder if any of the imfamous 400 is aware three of their colleagues were impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office in the 1980s for the very offense they now insist is not impeachable; perjury in a matter not germane to their official duties?

    It's unfortunate the entire profession is painted with the brush of cynicism for there are many fine attorneys in this country. However it is the inevitable result of years of rationalization by academe for wrongheaded decisions by courts that purport to know better than the people what constitutes justice and can find constitutional rights in the "penumbra" and "emanations" of our Constitution.

    One need only look at the present state of justice in this country and the low regard in which the law profession is held to see the public opinion of such rationalizing and judicial creativity.

    The day a public official can perjure him or herself in a court of law and still be supported by the members of the BAR is a sad day indeed for this country and augurs ill for the future of justice and the survival of our country as a nation of laws.

    One can only pray Congress has more wisdom.

    Paul Schmehl
    Richardson, Texas

  • As an individual who was majoring in political science during the Nixon era, as a Christian, and as a staunch Republican, I would like to state that I agree with the position statement in the letter from the 430+ law professors. Certainly, Mr. Clinton's actions are morally reprehensible and they might well provide a basis for legal actions, both civil and criminal, after he has left office. However, I do not believe they rise to the level of "other high crimes and misdemeanors" within the context contemplated by our founding fathers. Impeachment (and conviction) of a President involves a small group of lawmakers overturning the decision of millions of American voters. As such, its use should be limited to serious abuse of the powers of the office and it should never be based on purely partisan reasons. That's a lesson we learned over a hundred years ago when Andrew Johnson was impeached largely over a political dispute regarding how to deal with the South after the Civil War. That highly partisan action damaged the nation by weakening the office of President, resulting in a series of "no-name Prsidents" between Johnson and Theodore Roosevelt. It has been said that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it. Sadly, that seems to be our current predicament.

    As a college student in the early 70's, I was truly appalled by the unfolding of Watergate. However I believe those who compare Clinton to Nixon and hold that out as a basis for the present impeachment are making a serious mistake. In the case of Nixon, in addition to "lies to the public" there was widespread abuse of the powers of the Presidency, i.e. using the CIA to thwart the FBI investigation, firing the special prosecutor, etc. In light of that, although the Democrats pounced on the opportunity for political gain there was also substantial bi-partisan support for Nixon's removal. Perhaps the most telling difference lies in Nixon's resignation as opposed to Clinton's (and Johnson's) decisions to fight. I believe Nixon knew he had crossed the line and unlike both Johnson and Clinton, was not simply fighting "partisan politics."

    As a final note, I believe it is truly sad that our children and teens have been exposed to all of this. As a Sunday school teacher for our teens and as a father of two daughters, nine and six, I am concerned about the message all of this is sending to our youth. However, frankly, Ken Starr, our Republican lawmakers and particularly all of our "talking heads" must bear the brunt of that responsibility. Unfortunately, a protracted Senate trial will only provide more fodder for a frenzied media that has gone from reporting news to making it.

    In conclusion, it is my hope and prayer that our Senate will move rapidly to correct the mistake our House of Representatives has made. Only then can we begin to repair the damage this unfortunate episode has caused, both to our youth and to the very fabric of our government.

    Charles R. Gehrke
    Bonita Springs, Florida

  • I could not agree more with your assessment of the legal question involved. While I normally vote Republican, I am very much saddened by the misinterpretation of what the U.S. Constitution means and the weakening of the Presidency. This process has continued, in my judgment, since the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly ruled against President Nixon's claim of privilege for the tapes which ultimately led to his resignation.

    Hopefully, your letter will be sent to the Senate too. The thing which gives me hope for this whole process is that the American people gave President Clinton a 73% approval rating and the House it's lowest approval rating in years, if not ever, after the impeachment vote. The American people, thank God, are quick to recognize when someone, even a President, is not being treated fairly. The approval rating in my judgment was not for the President but, against the House Republicans who abused their power in voting to impeach him for crimes which were not "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

    The Republicans did not get the message when the November vote came out that the American people will guickly vote out of office people who abuse the authority given them. Putting all of the so called evidence on the internet without any consideration of fairness showed the American people from the beginning that the Republicans could not be trusted with the power given them.

    Hopefully, the Senate Republicans will get the mesage and get on with the real problems facing this nation. If not, I may have to become a Conservative Democrat again.

    Allen C. Lee
    San Antonio, Texas

  • Being an impartial British observer, in my opinion there are very serious flaws in your judicial system if it can impeach a President on his personal moralistic behavoir. The letter from the 430 Law Proffessors confirms the lack of substance for impeachable grounds however, the trial goes ahead not for crimes the committed by Mr Clinton, but opportunity to remove an obsticle in someone's political ambitions. It is not the right of anyone but God and Mr clinton to judge his personal behavior. And only his wife and family to take action accordingly. So whether he is impeached or not I only hope we as humans stop casting stones, for which of us can say "I am clean of sin, so should he be". Mr. Clinton may not be the most righteous of humans, but perhaps it's his lack of righteousness that makes him so compassionate to others and even possibly, a good human president. You may feel that I do not understand your political system, you may be right. But to impeach a President because one disagrees with his personal behavior is unconstitutional and unlawful. You therefore must ask yourselves the question, on what grounds are we doing this and how does this translate to other around the world? If you disagree with his conduct vote him out of office in your next elections, not like this.

    Phil Rowe
    Stockton-on-Tees, ENGLAND

  • I am glad to see that legal scholars have asked Republicans to consider that impeachment of this president is a ridiculous notion. Even if we assume that he violated the law with regard to lying under oath; and that is indeed extremely questionable and difficult to prove under this set of facts, that would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I am a staunch Republican and am concerned that by making the impeachment vote a partisan action against a popular president, the party will be harmed for generations by this action.

    I am also very concerned that the partisan character of the impeachment vote will forever change the character of the impeachment process from a very serious weapon that is only to be used for the most outrageous behavior of a president who threatens to become a monarch, or tyrant; to a process that merely is an exercise of the abuse of power by the majority.

    I would therefore urge all Republicans in the House of Representatives to vote against impeachment and get back to the job of running the government.

    Abraham M. Seidermann
    Attorney
    W. Bloomfield, Michigan

  • I am glad to see that legal scholars have asked Republicans to consider that impeachment of this president is a ridiculous notion. Even if we assume that he violated the law with regard to lying under oath; and that is indeed extremely questionable and difficult to prove under this set of facts, that would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I am a staunch Republican and am concerned that by making the impeachment vote a partisan action against a popular president, the party will be harmed for generations by this action. I am also very concerned that the partisan character of the impeachment vote will forever change the character of the impeachment process from a very serious weapon that is only to be used for the most outrageous behavior of a president who threatens to become a monarch, or tyrant; to a process that merely is an exercise of the abuse of power by the majority. I would therefore urge all repulicans in the house of representatives to vote against impeachment and get back to the job of running the government.

    Barbara Corkins
    Houston, Texas

  • Thank you for your informative and rational letter. I am profoundly disappointed that the House has choosen to decide this immensely important issue based on partison rhetoric, rather than, reasoned study of the constitutionality of impeachment based on the offenses charged.

    What will become of our democratic state if Congress succeeds in impeaching the President? Much harm has already been done. As your letter stated, it is imperative that the office of the president remain seperate and free from the ravings of a rabid Congress.

    Thank you again for proving that reason has not been abandoned by all in this ever more farcical affair.

    Jessica Koran
    Los Angeles, California

  • The letter written by the distinguished law professors of some of our well respected teaching institutions makes so much sense that it is clearly obvious that our governing bodies that control our country's destiny are blinded by their eagerness to condemn the commander in chief for acts that, though embarrassing, are surely not impeachable. This is evident to the people of our nation and they will eventually show their disapproval to these so-called voices of the public who are more and more showing just how out of touch they are from the real big picture.

    Richard Gonzalez
    Tempe, Arizona

  • I cannot agree on your conclusions regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense. Although I am not an attorney, I doubt that the law makes a distinction about perjury or obstruction of justice because one doesn't want to disclose personal information about one's sex life. Regarding the issue of discretion, it may be reasoned that if sexual indiscretion is not worthy of our consideration as an adequate motive to render perjury and obstruction of justice an impeachable offence then what is? It seems to me you have left behind the idea of an objective standard that makes the concept of law work. Or do you just wish to invent new meaning to laws and language and words as the notion strikes you? Perhaps you feel that given the situation we can just make up rules as we go... take public opinion into consideration, try to determine what the cultural mindset is at this stage of the game. Then you could consider what amount of support you have for your agenda and make a decision based on how the balance of power sits. This line of thinking may be the way its done, but its not law. It's anarchy. Or survival of the fittest if you prefer.

    A long time ago a man dared to say that Law is King. If we are not going to apply the law as it stands then you will make the King the law. I think we have already fought that war.

    Paul Womack
    Moore, Oklahoma

  • Virtually none of the "evidence" that has been presented to the Judiciary Comittee has been subjected to cross examination. Any impeachment proceeding, to satisfy the requirements of due process of law, would require a complete "re-hearing" of all of the alleged "evidence" gathered thus far.

    It is puzzling to me how an assembly of some of the best legal minds in the country could participate in a joint effort to send a letter to the Judiciary Committee without mentioning the fact that none of the allegations have been subjected to the scrutiny of cross examination.

    The constitutional requirement of "high crimes, etc." most certainly requires a burden of proof that must meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. So far, none of the alleged "evidence" presented to the Judiciary Committee meets the standard required to sustain a criminal conviction. The constitution requires clear and convincing proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) of "high crimes AND misdeamenors" to proceed with an impeachment trial in the Senate. In other words, an impeachment trial is not another "fishing expedition" but a procedure that must be based upon the presentation of evidence that is clear and compelling and can support a finding of quilt.

    Recently the Judiciary Committee has suggested a theme that suggests that the President is somehow required to respond to the evidence presented to the Committee. I would hope that "silence" in an impeachment proceeding does not allow for any conclusion of culpability.

    The methods used thus far by the Judiciary Committee are bizarre enough to enrage any jurist who cherishes the constitution. It seems that we have a virtual "kangaroo court" mentality in a Judiciary Committee that, above all other committees, should hold our constitutional procedures in the highest regard. Th tactic of the committee is a blatant attempt to sway public opinion and to ignore the most fundamental constitutional procedures to ensure fairness.

    John Charles Webb Jr.
    Legal Counsel, The Think Tank
    Makawao, Hawaii

  • Having failed in the 1996 elections, the Republican party is now squandering taxpayers money and making a global mockery of the American system of Government in an effort to achieve their political agenda.

    The real question is, which has done more harm to the country - President Clinton's sexual conduct ( and I deliberately omit the "mis" in front of conduct ) or the Republican Congress' relentless pursuit of a completely meaningless victory ?

    Alfonso Urdaneta
    Melbourne, Florida

  • All I know is that if I commited perjury I would be a felon and therefore unable to run for Presidential office. It doesn't stand to reason then that a President should be able to commit a felony. I am not a lawyer or law student, but what I know is that if we set a precident that a president can lie under oath then the system of checks and balances will simply cease to exist.

    Kevin Rector
    Killeen, Texas

  • Mr. Clinton's supporters have made much of the fact that over 400 people signed this opinion. I do not think the issue of impeachment should be decided by a poll of professors. Especially when the poll is largely limited to Democratic professors, most of whom have previously supported Mr. Clinton. I personally doubt that many would sign this letter if we were dealing with a Republican president. I do not recall any of these individuals objecting to Senator Packwood's removal for lying about his sexual activities. A letter arguing for impeachment and by signed by hundreds of Mr. Clinton's opponents would be equally meaningless to the debate.

    The question before Congress is whether perjury by a sitting president in a civil suit deserves punishment and, if it does, what that punishment should be. I think that as recently as last year most Americans would have assumed that lying under oath would justify punishment. Whether removal from office is the appropriate punishment is a much closer question. We would have a much better debate if we all realize that the precedent set in this case will almost surely be relied on by a later, possibly Republican, president.

    Joseph V. Kennedy
    Attorney
    Arlington, Virginia

  • I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. While the president has acted in what can be characterized as a disgraceful manner, his actions are not 'high misdemeanors or crimes." The president messed up badly and he tried to save Monica Lewinsky, his family, and himself from sure embarassment. Obviously, he was wrong to do so. This not treason. This is not selling arms to the Contras. In no way was the economic health of the country jeopardized. It did not cause a foreign invasion of US soil. Lastly, the only personal gain the president received was one headache after another. He should be publicy censored and we should move on. The American people have spoken already through Clinton's approval ratings. We want him to remain in office. However, politics is a different game than real life. This would not be happening if we had a Democrat controlled congress, or if the president was Republican. It's not about "high crimes and misdemeanors," but about partisan politics and political power. This type of behavior, blatantly going against the will of the people, is exactly why Jesse "The Body" Ventura got elected governor of Minnesota. The people are fed up with self-serving politicians playing out their soap operas with our tax money, while doing nothing for the good of the people. Ken Starr and his way-too-expensive investigation was a joke, but the people are not laughing about a 40 million dollar sex story. Looking at this whole thing, it is easy to see why most Americans are disenchanted with our political system and players.

    E. John Overton
    Attorney
    San Jose, California

  • I am happy your letter was composed and sent. The average americn like myself feels very helpless in face of thehorrible events in Washington. I'm upset with Mr. Clinton for sure but impeachment is absolutely ridiculous. I am so disheartened when I think of my government. I feel cynical about all politicians. Its such a sad state of affairs. I read the whole letter. Keep up the good work.

    Phyllis Wygodny
    Highland Park, Illinois

  • I fear the 430 law professors confuse politics with the law. In politics you can lie as much as you want with the polls influencing whether you remain in office. The law has not been subject to public polls prior to the expression of a legal opinion. I spent 18 years as a police officer and a criminal investigator. I have seen criminals lie under oath a thousand times. I believe with all my heart that the only way to differentiate myself from them, was to tell the truth, no matter what the cost. Our legal system and its control over the people is a fragile thing. If the president can lie under oath, so can his government representatives. It is our willingness to hold our government up to public scrutiny that has flushed out wrong doing by the power elite. President Clinton had the option to refuse to answer on self-incrimination grounds. He chose instead, an action that not only placed him in the position of committing a felony, but was intended to influence the outc! ome of a large civil trial as well. Those actions in turn snowballed into more work for Judge Starr. The delaying of the investigation and lying by president Clinton are important considerations when placing blame. If the criminal investigator suddenly is held responsible for the costs and delays caused by a lying uncooperative criminal, the system will cease to function. If a convicted felon, is not elgible to hold the office of the president, it would naturally follow that committing a felony while sitting as president would be grounds for disqualification. These verbal gymnastics by the law school teachers fail to address this issue, while providing no nexus between the historical "or" which precedes high crimes and misdemeanors and their word games. In the statutory world of criminal law that "OR" indicates a difference between the words before and the words that follow. I have been taught to look for personal bias in writings such as these. The bias of the original one o! r two authors is unmistakeable and lessens the credibilty of their "legal" argument and their academic position. Lawyers are not afforded a great deal of respect by the society at large. If these 430 are the ones responsible for teaching them ethics and argument, then I am not surprised. There have been many examples in the media of people who handle dangerous animals becoming so desensitized that they lose respect for the power of the beast. The animal turns and attacks them when they least expect it. Bill Clinton has done that with the Law and I fear these teachers are attempting to make the same "beast" do a parlor trick. If you don't respect its nature, it will turn on you.

    D. Larrarini
    Viola, Idaho

  • The law is not black and white. Both as a matter of principle, and as a matter of reality, every alleged infraction of the law is unique, and must be judged uniquely. The unequivocal uniqueness of every situation is clearly manifest in our court system, with its individual trials, judgments, and penalties. Moreover, in addition to the uniqueness of each alleged infraction, the interpretation of the law relating to that infraction is unique, as each prior judgment and penalty relating to the law in question affects the interpretation of the law itself, in the form of precedent. Thus, each and every alleged infraction of the law must be judged individually, uniquely, in the absence of absolute, and meaningless, statements (e.g., 'perjury is perjury'). Recognition of the individual and unique properties of the law and its interpretation is what is most prominently absent from the present impeachment debate. Mr. Starr himself is perhaps the leading offender in this regard.

    Much of the discussion, for example, centers around whether "perjury" is an impeachable offense. This, however, is simply not the relevant question. The appropriate question is whether Mr. Clinton's specific and unique behavior, in his specific and unique situation, is impeachable.

    Mr. Clinton's testimony regarding Ms. Lewinsky arose solely from a politically and financially motivated civil trial of little legal merit, which then led to the OIC's politically and personally motivated grand jury inquiry. No independent crime was being investigated, no other wrong was being addressed. It is this absence of any criminal framework that is the singular defining characteristic of this investigation.

    Thus, while the majority of Americans do not believe Mr. Clinton should be impeached, this does not imply that the majority of Americans condone perjury, or believe that perjury in any instance in not impeachable. It simply reflects the measured judgment of Americans, given the specific situation of Mr. Clinton's questioning. What right does anyone have to ask questions of someone, under oath in a court of law, regarding a consensual sexual relationship, when no crime has been committed? This is not a trivial question, but rather the defining issue in any judgment of Mr. Clinton's testimony.

    The majority of Americans recognize the unique nature of each case before our laws, including Mr. Clinton's.

    Given the Judicial Committee's plan to examine past cases of perjury, I would be most interested to see if they can find a case of someone who lied under oath about a sexual relationship, when the sole and driving force for the case was an investigation of the relationship itself. I believe the Committee would be hard-pressed to find such a example.

    D. Mozaffarian, MD
    Seattle, Washington

  • I disagree with the letter to congress opposing impeachment. We have a president with a long pattern of lying, deceit, punishment of dissenting parties, misuse of his power, and immoral conduct. He has survived only on his ability to walk a fine legal line and the reluctance of the people to face it head on. We as a nation need to take a stand against such conduct in our leadership or our nation's moral fabric, that has made us so strong in the past, will continue to tear. The result will be a decline of our great nation and the world. We have the means for dealing with such conduct through our impeachment process. Let's use it. Painful as it may be, our nation will be worse off if we do not exercise it to the full. Turning our head the other way or administering a slap on the wrist in the form of censure, which is not prescribed by the constitution, will not adequately resolve the problem for generations to come. It would be a cowardly cop out.

    B. Meadows
    Hartford City, Indiana

  • I totally agree with the letter. I currently teach law in a community college setting, but am marked by 22 years in private and public criminal law practice. I can quibble with your language - in terms of its' somewhat pedantic and formal style, but the underlying legal issue is clear. Well done!!

    Jim Davitt
    University of Maine at Augusta

  • I was admitted to the New York Bar in February of 1948, considerably earlier than most of the law professor signatories to your recently published letter. Leonard Garment and I were classmates. Leonard at least had the honesty and fortitude to persuade Richard Nixon to resign, which, I feel is what the letter in question should be urging President Clinton, if you truly respect the Rule of Law.

    Do any of your 400 signatories doubt what would have been the outcome for them if they had behaved in the Courts of Judge Wright and Judge Johnson or before a Grand Jury as has Bill Clinton? They would have been reprimanded, cited for contempt and disbarred, never to teach Law again, at the least. They may well have been tried for perjury and sentenced to the full extent of the Law. And, if one of their law students so conducted himself, he would be dismissed from schoool; if such conduct were discovered after graduation, no such graduate would ever be permitted admission to the Bar by the character committee of the State in which he resided.

    All the signatories, in my opinion, should look to their moral qualifications, not their academic ones, for teaching the Law.

    Asher Hiesiger
    Santa Fe, New Mexico

  • I applaud the courage of all the 430 law professors who signed the letter to Congress. The Republican dominated Congress has lost all objectivity in its quest to remove this President from office. I wish you would send this letter to all the major newspapers in the country and challenge them to publish it. I believe it is your duty to speak up and point to the letter of the law, in this case the constitution ,and make it clear that the Judiciary Committee is overstepping its legal bounds. As you point out, the constitution has created a checks and balance system by allowing for three executive branches to avoid what we are going through now. To allow Congress to impeach for frivolous reasons is setting a dangerous precedent. It is equally clear to all but the 33% of Clinton haters that K. Starr, inspite of his angelic face and behaviour during the Judiciary Committee's testimony, displayed his partisan stance on this matter and I pity the poor people who are duped! by him. He did not answer one question in a straight and forth-coming manner, he was as evasive as Clinton's enemies claim Clinton is. I voted for the President twice, I would do so again, because he cares for many issues that deeply concern me, a middle-aged divorced women to whom the issues he is addressing matter as much as life itself. Wake up America, this Congress, if it could, would not only do away with the President, but with Social Security, environmental laws, medicare, mediacaid, labor laws, in short, any kind of safety net that the person without ample financial security needs. It would deregulate and deregulate until we follow the paths of third-world coun tries where the gap betwen rich and poor widens with every breath we take.

    Lydia Bell
    Gilbert, Arizona

  • I just read your letter to the Speaker of the House regarding the impeachment proceedings currently in progress.

    I wholeheartedly agree with the Law Professors. Their argument is so sensible as to be elementary. I see our country shamed and torn apart by disgruntled Repbulicans who still are sore about Mr. Dole not being President.

    I do not condone in anyway behaviors Mr. Clinton is accussed of. It is a soory time for our country. However, there is not an adult in this country and least of all, any politician in Congress who can stand "without sin" before our country and her citizens.

    Congress needs to get itself to the business of fully represeneting thie constiuients for a change and get out of the business of Soap Operas, Character Assasination, and Dodging Responsiblity to the PEOPLE they have sworn to serve.

    Thank you for your network and the opportunity to respond.

    Kathy Grothe-Lohmeyer
    West Jordan, Utah

  • Am I expected to believe over 400 of you law types were able to agree on all those words in that letter??? I think not. This man pointed his finger at me and LIED. That man met with his cabinet and lied and they carried the lie out to us. What in Gods name does it take with you guys??? You seem to find no fault in your letter to the house. I'm disappointed to say the least.

    Jim Russell
    Tampa, Florida

  • I do not speak on behalf of my work place nor my position, but I personally agree with your legal interpretation of impeachable offenses as presented in your letter to Congress opposing impeachment of our President. I am a registered Democrat, but vote more as an independent. I am disgusted at how both Democratic and Republican Congressmen have treated this issue so far, even after the overwhelming support for the President given by the public at large. In conclusion, your letter was well-written with many examples illustrating your meanings. Thank you for sharing this letter with us.

    Frank Wagoner
    Tampa, Florida

  • This is the most rational and non-judgemental piece of information that I have seen. I hope the people's response gets through to the House of Representatives and brings an end to this ridiculous procedure - neither warranted by the President's actions (though I do not condone his behavior) or in any way "high crimes, treason and misdemeanors." STOP - NOW!

    Rev. Dorris Dow Alcott
    Timonium, Maryland

  • I would be curious to know whether anyone who lied under oath about their sex life, say in the context of a domestic relations dispute, has ever been prosecuted for perjury.

    Tom Field
    Franklin Pierce Law Center
    Concord, New Hampshire

  • I'm confused. At this point in time do we have ALL the information to make a decision if the President should or should not be impeached? I think your letter to Congress is premature. I'm not an attorney or Law Professor but I think the process should continue in order to make a fair decision.

    Dennis Chesanek
    Thomaston, Connecticut

  • Your letter is the type of reasoning that allows criminals to go free in a land that is supposed to be ruled by law. There is no IF President Clinton lied under oath. Anyone with common sense can see that he lied under oath. He lied directly to me, an American citizen. He lied to his staff and family. He admits to all this. There is ot question. I am not a scholar of the law; however, I am a citizen who is bright enough to hold a Ph.D. and be in business for herself. The words "high crimes and misdemeanors" appear repeatedly in this process. Not one word in your letter addressed the "misdemeanor" part. While lying under oath may not be a "high crime" like bribery or treason, it surely can be classed as a misdemeanor.

    Our laws are not developed for the majority of people or about the majority of people. To say that because polls indicate that the majority of the people want this to go away, is like saying because the majority of the people in the South wanted to secede the Union in the 1860's they should have been allowed to go in peace. Congress is not elected to rule by poll, they are elected to lead the Nation and at times that might involve doing what is highly unpopular.

    It would be helpful to society in general if those of you who are so concerned about the effect of an impeachment proceeding on our country were also as highly concerned about the moral message this president has given to our young people and to the world about keeping promises to your spouse, setting an example for your children, and obeying the laws of the land. This man has shamed himself and brought shame to our country and to the office of President. He has failed to uphold the law of the land by lying under oath. A very serious mesdemeanor has been committed. And if this behavior goes unpunished, why should anyone be required to tell the truth under oath again? Where is your outrage?

    Pamela Horton
    Georgetown, Texas

  • I couldn't agree more with the professors of law who authored the letter to Mr. Gingrich. It is a disgrace to the entire nation if "our" congress proceeds with impeachment hearings. Are the Republican lawmakers too deaf to hear what the American people had to say on Election Day???

    Trampes Stancil
    Clayton, Georgia

  • As an ordinary citizen of the United States, I am concerned about the concept of the lack of truthfulness while under oath, regardless of the subject matter, in a civil trial.... If the House just impeached and the Senate did not "remove" then maybe the proper message would have been sent and the move to "censure" (syn. for impeachment) would be satisfied.???

    Esler H. Johnson
    Pasadena, California

  • Interestingly enough, the authors completely ignore the Constitutional duty of the President to ensure that "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." (Article II, Section 3). In a very real sense then, ANY President who fails to "faithfully execute" the laws has violated an "official" duty (which the authors seem to think is the only grounds for impeachment) prescribed by the Constitution.

    Also, the authors seem to imply that only conduct relating to or impacting "official" duties may be considered impeachable. Does this mean a President who bribes (as opposed to being bribed) public officials to influence a course of action unrelated to the Presidency is immune from impeachment? What of a President who murders in the "heat of passion"?

    John Dowling
    Silver Springs, Maryland

  • This letter is a clear and objective statement of the current impeachment situation. I would hope that you would also send a copy to Mr. Starr. I do appreciate that such a large body of law professors can actually totally agree on such an important matter to our national well-being. Thank you all.

    M.C. Craig
    St. Louis, Missouri

  • This letter is proof to what length, and depth, the politically motivated can rationalize immoral and illegal behavior. Perjury is a serious, and I believe, impeachable crime. If you believe in a system of law for all of our society, Clinton cannot be exempt. No one is above the law. It really is that simple.

    L. Preston
    East Freetown, New York

  • Your clear and powerful message makes a lot of sense to all those interested in safeguarding a credible democratic process and a fair justice system. Unfortunately, though, the drive "to get Clinton" was started and is continued by a group of people who have different, political motives that are not possible to satisfy via a true, democratic process. As such, no amount of reasoning can make any difference to their thinking. To achieve their objectives, they will continue to misuse the powers given to them by the constistution, never bothered by the damage they cause to the very core of the justice system that the American People elected them to protect.What a shame!

    Name withheld
    Muscat, OMAN

  • Ms. Bloch's and Mr. Rubenfeld's letter to Speaker Gingrich represents an interesting, but unpersuasive argument against the propriety of moving forward with impeachment proceedings against our President. Adding over 400 names of law professors to the letter makes the effort to provide legal wisdom to our Congress all the more disconcerting since the commentary is devoid of the traditional analysis that would undergird any legal opinion. That is so because, as the professors candidly point out, there is no judicial precedent binding Congress in their determination of whether President Clinton's alleged conduct constitutes "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Ultimately, what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political decision. As such, a letter signed by hundreds of law professors should be given no more weight than one signed by any citizen of this great country.

    Since the signatories of this letter believe that their station as legal scholars gives them standing to be seriously considered by our elected representatives on this issue, let me offer this brief counterpoint to the logic which they have applied to this matter. My "standing" derives from my position as a trial judge [Editors' Note: Circuit Court Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida] where the sanctity of the oath remains central to all legal proceedings. I, too, have no political stake in this matter and am equally saddened that a letter of this nature has become necessary.

    In a nutshell, our law professors have endorsed a formula for our consideration which, at its core, suggests that two elements are required to constitute an impeachable offense by the President: 1). The act or omission must involve an executive function; and 2) the act or omission must be of such seriousness that the risk to our country caused by the impeachment process is outweighed by the risk to our country of allowing the President to continue in office. More simply stated, the key component of the second prong of this test is whether the alleged conduct threatens the fabric of this democracy. In that regard, may I suggest that any perjury by a sitting President falls within the category of conduct which prospectively threatens all that holds this garment of democracy intact.

    I believe that central to the continued vitality of any civilized society is the rule of law. Without an orderly means to sanction illegal behavior or to redress a civil wrong, humankind tends to revert to a methodology of force, intimidation and cruelty where only the most ruthless prevail. Modern application of this maxim can be found anecdotally or systemically in every country's history.

    The cornerstone of any system of jurisprudence is the sacred oath to testify truthfully when appearing as a witness both before and during trial. In our country, serious sanctions are imposed for those convicted of perjury or obstructing justice. These statutory penalties imposed for such unlawful behavior stand as a testament to the importance our society has assigned to our system of justice.

    While all the other important issues relating to the Clinton investigation such as ethics, privacy and the separation of power may ultimately be swept away in the court of public opinion, we must stand united in our resolve to demand the continued adherence to the sanctity of the oath and the swift punishment for those who have violated this important promise.

    Presidents, judges and all others who maintain the public trust stand accountable, as must all citizens, for failing to abide by their oath.

    There may be no greater peacetime risk to our nation than the demise of our system of justice which seems to be, at least, a possible consequence of allowing a president to decide when the rule of law should apply. As a case in point, I have already detected a noticeable cynicism among some witnesses in my courtroom when the oath is being administered. Although I'm not certain what lies at the root of this new development, it does seem likely from their comments that they may have become desensitized to the importance of the oath by their exposure to the President's conduct and the ensuing media debate about when it is acceptable,at least in an impeachment context, for the President to lie under oath. I wouldn't be surprised if other judges throughout this nation are having similar experiences.

    When application of the sanctity of the oath and the search for the truth is determined by situation ethicists, we will have no one to blame, but ourselves, for the consequent erosion of our system of justice. While the system is not perfect, it is far superior to one which rewards only the most ruthless and powerful. It is time to take a stand and accept the notion that the preservation of honesty and truth is an important national interest worth protecting, irrespective of the price.

    Michael Overstreet
    Panama City Beach, Florida

  • The letter is a most well reasoned presentation of what might happen in the future to the governance of the United States if the House were to return Articles of Impeachment Against a President for less that conduct arising out of and inimmicable to the performance of the duties of the office of President. If such action were tolerated, or if the Judiciary Committee could return a recommendation for impeachment, then each elected president might well be held hostage to the whims of a majority House of Representatives who could by accepting an impeachment report from the Judiciary Committee, then proceed to tie up the governance of the whole country for months if not years.

    William L. Watts, Esq.
    Retired attorney
    Lakewood, Colorado

  • The trouble with the impeachment letter is that it completely ignores the other (and more serious) allegations which the House committee should consider. The President has been credibly accused of misusing the FBI (Travelgate), misuse of FBI files, authorizing technology transfer to China to accommodate the largest contributor to the Democratic party, allowing front companies for the People's Army to set up shop en masse in California's technology belt, numerous violations of the campaign finance laws, etc. He should be in prison.

    Dr. C. David Laney
    Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA

  • I support the views of the Professors. President Clinton has done nothing to harm the state and is doing good as a president. Its not like he has sold America out.

    I do not understand why they are pressuring him to step down. I think America have more to lose if the impeachment proceeds.

    If Starr believe so much in the law as to concentrate on the President's life, its best he do the same to everyone or it will be a double standard America.

    Leonard Yeo
    Singapore, SINGAPORE

  • I think that you all have missed the point. You are arguing over what is LEGAL and the real point on what is RIGHT. It really makes no difference over what he lied, it makes a difference that he his lying under oath.

    If you condone any lying, it is the the same as reducing the penalty for drug use. If it is suddenly acceptable, then those who dabble in drugs that USED to be illegal are now upstanding citizens. It does not make sense to me.

    I think our country is in a dire condition when the legal profession is teaching this in our nations schools. Did we lose our sense of right and wrong? If he did it, he was guilty.

    Carl Carter
    Glendale, Arizona

  • The "Law Professors Letter" is pretty amusing. I dare say that if any of their students submitted such a defective and self-contradictory "legal analysis" they would be summarily flunked. The letter is political opinion, well meaning "by some" I am sure, dressed up with credentialism.

    Example: We can agree that Presidents should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office only for important things, not for insignificant things. Nevertheless, "the Letter" is addressed to impeachment alone, and the precedent, the basis of analysis that law professors used to teach, is that a President has been impeached for pure political partisanship and differences of opinion, and nearly convicted and removed from office for it -- Andrew Johnson. So the Constitutional Standard is not as "high" as represented.

    Another example:

    "The clause does not read, 'Treason, Felony, or other Crime' (as does Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution), so that any violation of a criminal statute would be impeachable. Nor does it read, 'Arson, Larceny, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' implying that any serious crime, of whatever nature, would be impeachable. Nor does it read, 'Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' implying that any conduct deemed to reveal serious moral lapses might be an impeachable offense. When a President commits treason, he exercises his executive powers, or uses information obtained by virtue of his executive powers, deliberately to aid an enemy."

    But neither does it say "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors committed in the exercise of his Executive Power." Opinion and advocacy, not analysis; instead, belief:

    "Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise list of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have differed in interpreting these words. We believe"

    Belief is not analysis.

    Another amusing example:

    "It goes without saying that lying under oath is a very serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this case. The House's power to impeach, like a prosecutor's power to indict, is discretionary. "

    So, a President's lying under oath is a very serious offense, the Constitution says only that "Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are the basis for impeachment [in spite of what "we believe"], precedent shows a President has been impeached for differences of opinion that were not "serious offenses," and, last but not least, the power to impeach is discretionary. The conclusion: "we believe" he should not be impeached on these facts. Pure opinion and belief, unsupported by reason or logic. And without any consideration of what a President's lying under oath has on the supposed basis of our entire system: the rule of law, not of men.

    The last example is hilarious:

    "But if certain crimes such as murder warrant removal of a President from office because of their unspeakable heinousness"

    But, murder does not involve the " ...exercise [of] his executive powers..." any more than the "serious offense of lying under oath" to a federal criminal grand jury or to a civil litigant in a deposition. So why should murder be an impeachable offense, so long as a President commits it himself?

    Walter Stumpf
    Houston, Texas

  • Your comments and analysis could not be more timely or on point. Thank you for shedding light into the dark recesses of the "Congressional mind." While no one can applaud the President's conduct or judgment (workplace, Sr Executive and Jr employee, etc), the conduct at issue is neither unique nor close to meeting the standards needed to overturn the results of the 1996 election.

    Weston Loegering
    Attorney
    Dallas, Texas

  • I just finished reading the letter from the 430 law professors to the Congress opposing impeachment of president Clinton. I must say that I am dismayed by its reasoning. If perjury and obstruction of justice are not sufficient reasons what is? The line of reasoning used in this letter would excuse the president from a wide array of crimes that any other citizen would be jailed for. Is the president to be beyond common law? I see no great damage that would incur to the nation as a result of impeachment. After all we do have a vice president who would no doubt continue the president's programs. I am sorry to say this but this appears to me to be exactly what it claims not to be. I intend to communicate to my congressmen that if they are convinced by the evidence they examine that the president is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice then they must vote for impeachment. That is my interpretation of the constiution as a private citizen.

    Thomas C. Robbins
    Cupertino, California

  • This is a very nicely written and presented Op-Ed piece carefully making the argument that while some(?!) of the authors find the Presidents conduct reprehensible that isn't enough to match a 'narrow' impeachment reading of the Constitution. It is very misleading however to present this as a Constitutional Scholars' judgment since the authors admit little specific historical-constitutional basis for their judgment beyond their parsing of grammar. This should not come as a great surprise since the answer to the question, "What is an impeachable offense?" is left for each generation to decide -- just as the Constitution's authors intended.

    Three other observations: 1) one can certainly abuse the powers of the office passively rather than actively by failing to carry out the duties of the Oath as is alleged by the President's critics: failing to uphold the laws (lying and influencing others to lie) is an abuse of the very specific responsibilities of the office. 2) the S.C.'s allowance of testimony because it wouldn't disrupt the President's duties presupposed that the President would not lie in his testimony: an argument against the author's claims. 3) perhaps Republicans and Democrats can now agree to revise or eliminate the office of independent counsel as well as reign-in the erosion of privacy legislated by feminist legislation: sexual histories should not be 'fishible' and boarish office behaviour should not be a legal crime.

    James D. Smith
    Lawrence, Kansas

  • Can you tell me how many of the Professors are Democrats, because without that information the letter can only be viewed as a pure political document. Thank you.

    William F. Northrop
    Mercer Island, Washington

  • Amen! It's incredible that the Grand Jury testimony was released to the media and the Internet, that Ken Starr was even allowed to expand his investigation into the Monica Lewinski affair to begin with.

    The Republicans need to take a very serious look at what they're doing. Enough is too much. Stop this nonsense!

    Alice Zwiller
    Lawson, Colorado

  • The recent letter signed by 430 law professors opposing impeachment discusses the possible violations of law and their significance. I do not challenge the arguments regarding whether the possible violations of law constitute grounds for impeachment. I do, however, find a deficiency in the letter. Nowhere in its contents are violations of the Presidential Oath of Office addressed as an impeachable offense. I propose that such violations, even those that might not be violations of law, can constitute an impeachable offense.

    Consider the information contained in the Starr Referral, whose factual details have not been disputed by the President or his attorneys. According to that information, the President engaged in immoral conduct while simultaneously executing the duties of his office on the telephone with members of Congress. In the most serious instance, he was exercising his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief discussing funding for military operations in Bosnia. By deliberately choosing to link his misconduct with the execution of official duties, the President has violated his oath to faithfully execute those duties. Such a violation of the oath of office is especially serious when it occurs in conjunction with the President's responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. It calls into question the President's moral authority to issue executive orders which put the members of our armed forces into harm's way.

    Prescribed in the Constitution and administered as a prerequisite to holding the office, the oath is no mere ceremonial formality. Adherence to the oath to faithfully execute the duties of the office is the most fundamental responsibility required of a President. When violations of the oath of office are coupled with violations of law, the offenses seem worthy of an impeachment inquiry. The Founding Fathers did not explicitly mention violating one's oath of office as an impeachable offense because to them, adherence to the oath of office was an implicit prerequisite to the incumbent's fitness to continue to serve the nation in that capacity. If that were not so, they would not have codified the oath in the Constitution. If we are to ignore violations of that oath, then I submit we must for the sake of consistency amend the Constitution and remove that oath from its contents.

    Some assert that to avoid diminishing the Office of the Presidency we must not impeach the President for his lawbreaking and scandalous behavior. However, in my opinion, if we allow a President to violate the law and debase his official duties without challenge, we run a far greater risk of diminishing that office.

    I'm not a legal scholar. I'm a mathematics Ph.D.... I do not pretend to be qualified to address the matters of law. However, the most basic issue here does not even seem to me to be a legal issue, but rather an issue tied to the office itself. I simply cannot see how we can ignore violations of the oath of office.

    John P. Thomas
    Carnegie-Mellon University

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Chicago's Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturers... 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
The Starr Report...
  • Enough is enough. Too much of the peoples money have been waisted on this never ending LEWINSKY scandal. I invite our lawmakers to set aside this nonsense waste of time and money. Focus their attention on projects of national interest. Stop the bad attitude of trying to destroy others because of jealousy that amounts to degrading our identity before the world. Let us drop this case and start moving forward.

    Tomas Lobo Poblete
    Oakland, CA

  • To succeed in driving out a duly elected president by means of a politically-funded civil suit frivolous on its face because a politically-slanted Supreme Court said the ludicrous -- the case would not disrupt government -- would be to affirm the fundamental corruption of the Constitution. Neither Starr nor Clinton is admirable, but Starr is distorting the very shape of government. What Clinton is distorting is no less important, but is less directly a matter of the political process.

    On the morality issue: yes, the personal is connected to the political. And that is the only route by which true forgiveness, that which Hannah Arendt said is the only truly new thing, can enter politics. Misuse of moral judgment is what drove it into disrepute before; this would be devastating to morality as a public concern. Clinton manages to show both deep respect and radical trivializing of women.....as a POLITICAL ACTOR, he is far more in line with women's agendas. That is why many women are willing to forgive him, but not let their daughters near him.

    Emily Fowler Hartigan
    St. Mary's University School of Law

  • We should never forget that this report, the OIC, and the forthcoming process that may lead to impeachment are all political in nature, rather than legal. I have serious concerns about the political motivations of the OIC and hope, but do not expect, that Congress will put politics aside for the good of the country and the Constitution.

    Even given all that has been reported--and I tend to believe in the basic accuracy of the OIC's report, although not necessarily every detail--I do not believe impeachment is warranted. This is simply in and of itself not of the gravity (see Prof. Shane's "Impeachment: An Introduction") to warrant it. One could reasonably argue that the President is so damaged by this report that he should resign for the good of the country, and I see some merit to that argument. Given the worldwide economic uncertainty and the Russian political/economic crisis, strong, unhampered leadership is essential. However, I am even more afraid of the precedent that is set should the President resign for an "offense" that should not be impeachable. The damage to the country and its Constitutional structure would be far worse.

    George Pike
    University of Pittsburgh School of Law

  • Almost forty years ago there was a Florida legislative committee called the Johns Committee. It started out as a McCarthy-like anticommunist investigation. It then turned into a anti-homsexual ferreting out of gays on state faculties. Several people were fired and a number were able to resign. The names of all faculty who resigned, etc., were published in the Gainesville Sun, among other papers, w/o regard to reason, the innuendo being clear enough. At any rate, I have been put in mind of this Comm. by the Starr report.

    How so? Well, the Committee published what has to come to be known as the Blue Book (not the Harv. blue book), because it was a hard back blue colored book with "salacious" pictures of little boys and pictures of men kissing, all of which was quite arguably at that time pornographic. Well, the book became perhaps not a best seller, but a highly marketable item. If the Starr report were not so readily available on internet and in various newspapers, etc., I guess it would find a market in brown wrappers. (I have not read it, albeit not from prudishness....)

    Walter Probert
    University of Florida College of Law

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧

If you would like to comment on a legal news story (or would like to comment on another reader's response), use this form, or send your comment directly to JURIST@law.pitt.edu...

Your name:
Organization:
Position:
City/Town:
State/Country:
E-mail [optional] :

Note: This form is supported by Response-O-Matic, an advertiser-supported commercial service. JURIST is not responsible for the content of the advertising contained on the page that appears after this form is submitted.