Jewish World Review June 23, 2004 / 4 Tamuz, 5764
Special counsel law: Reform gone awry
Bill Clinton's book release is giving him more chances to take shots at the man who spent five years investigating him, Kenneth Starr. Mr. Starr resigned in 1999. That same year the independent counsel law, under whose authority he worked, was allowed to expire.
Whatever you may think about the charges that Mr. Starr was asked to probe, or about the investigations themselves, the demise of the independent counsel law was a welcome event. The law had proved a classic case of reform gone awry, and when the time came to legislate its extension in 1999, few in Congress were willing to speak on its behalf.
Congress first passed the law in 1978, with fresh memories of Watergate and President Nixon's firing of the special prosecutor he had named to conduct the probe, Archibald Cox. Mr. Cox wanted tapes of the president's conversations with aides - tapes, the world would later learn, that implicated him in the cover-up of a so-called "third-rate burglary" of Democratic offices in the Watergate complex.
President Nixon declined to hand the tapes over, but Mr. Cox won a court order directing him to do so. When the president refused to comply, Mr. Cox announced that he would seek to have the president held in contempt. President Nixon then ordered his dismissal.
To many in Congress, the firing taught that outside prosecutors needed enough independence from an administration so that they could truly probe charges of misconduct. The independent counsel law took the appointment power away from the executive and lodged it in a special court even as it also sharply limited the president's authority to remove the prosecutor.
Those provisions contemplated a more relentless pursuit of executive malfeasance than had been seen before in our politics.
During the law's 21 years, the Justice Department conducted more than 40 preliminary investigations of alleged misconduct and concluded that at least 20 charges merited "further investigation" by a court-appointed counsel. A number of individuals were indicted and some convicted. And Bill Clinton became the subject of an extraordinary impeachment referral sent to the House of Representatives by Mr. Starr.
During the Clinton years, people once enamored of the law found themselves recalling what President Gerald Ford's wise attorney general, Edward Levi, had said back in 1976: that the law would create opportunities for "actual or apparent partisan influence in law enforcement," publicize and dignify "unfounded, scurrilous allegations," result "in the continuing existence" of a "multiplicity" of independent counsels, and promote "the possibility of unequal justice."
Mr. Levi failed to add that the law would weaken presidencies to an extent not contemplated by the original constitutional design.
The law would still be on the books today had Democrats not had a change of heart. Mainly Democrats pressed for its extension in 1983, 1987 and 1994.
Not until a Democratic president actually experienced the probings of a "multiplicity" of independent counsels did Democrats lose their enthusiasm for the law. In December 1996 Bill Clinton, regretting that he had signed the 1994 extension, said the costs of the law had come to outweigh its benefits. A self-interested statement, you could say, but he was right.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.
06/14/04: Reagan's influence is apparent in federal judiciary
05/25/04: What do Bush's sagging approval ratings really mean for November?
05/17/04: We must make distinctions between Berg, Abu Ghraib
05/11/04: College costs rise with students' expectations
04/30/04: A country's declining birthrate into oblivion
04/26/04: Dems escalate the judicial war
04/09/04: Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less
© 2004, Terry Eastland