The Impeachment Debate
December 18, 1998
This is a very sobering time in our country's history. This would be only the third time that
articles of impeachment have been drafted - and only the second time in our nations history
that votes would be cast.
There are some with differing political ideology who would suggest what the President has
done is shameful, sinful, and wrong - but not impeachable. They offer that the President should
be censured by the House of Representatives instead. They do not deny any of the charges
made against the President, nor do they contend that he is innocent of the charges.
I think some background is very important, because it seems that some in the congress and
media are not being totally honest (any surprises?). The Constitution of the United States of
America states in part, in Article II, section 4, that "The President shall be removed from office
on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." There is no provision in the Constitution for the House of Representatives to
censure the President. It would be conceivable that if the president were censured by the
House, that a suit could be brought up challenging its constitutionality, which would most likely
be upheld by the Supreme Court. Which would result in the censure being expunged from the
record.
A censure is a sentence, or condemnation. Only the Senate can give sentence after a Senate
trial. The House of Representatives must approve the Articles of Impeachment, or charge the
president of wrongdoing. Once the president has been "charged" with a crime, "the Senate
shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."
It is clear that the articles of impeachment on the president should be passed by the House of
Representatives. If after hearing the evidence, the Senate believes censure would be the
appropriate penalty, then so be it. This is how our government was intended to work.
Our very own Congressman, Bob Clement (TN-05), said on the house floor that we should
compromise. He said that our finest moments were done with compromise. My question for
Congressman Clement is, what do you stand for? There are some things you DO NOT
compromise as a matter of principle and honor. One of which is the Constitution of the United
States, and the oath that the President took when sworn in to office.
There have been four articles brought against the president. Those articles contend that the
president:
has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for
his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice [Article I
& II]
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that
end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of
conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of
evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him
in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. [Article III]
has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired
the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and
contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of
a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson
Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and
willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to
certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment
inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United
States. [Article IV]
These are my thoughts on the subject, and your comments are welcome.
Jody Chambley
