|
Jewish World Review Jan. 29, 1999 /12 Shevat, 5759
Thomas Sowell
What is at stake?
(JWR) --- (http://www.jewishworldreview.com) DOES HAVING A TAWDRY AFFAIR in the White House "rise to the level of an
impeachable offense"? Of course not. Nobody believes that it does. Not
Kenneth Starr, not Henry Hyde. Nobody.
That has never been the issue, regardless of how many times the issue has
been misstated this way by those who realize that the only way to defend
Bill Clinton is to confuse the issue. The event that set off a chain of
actions is not a measure of how important those actions are for now or how
large the stakes are for the future.
The most famous Supreme Court decision of our time -- "Brown v. Board
of Education" -- was not about where one little girl in Topeka would go to
school. That was what set off the dispute but, if that was all that was
involved, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly have refused to take the case
and confined itself to the "real work" that they had to do "for the American
people."
The reason the Supreme Court took the case was a principle that applied far
beyond the individuals involved. The issue was the role of racial
segregation in light of the Constitution's mandate of equal treatment for
all.
The most momentous Supreme Court decision in American history began in the
early nineteenth century because an obscure individual named William Marbury
thought he was entitled to a minor government job in the District of
Columbia, even though Secretary of State James Madison thought otherwise.
Does that in itself "rise to the level" of a case worthy of the Supreme
Court? Of course not.
What made the case of "Marbury versus Madison" historic was the principle
involved, that courts have the authority to over-rule actions of the
executive branch of government or of Congress, when those actions violate
the Constitution. This crucial principle of judicial review, affecting the
whole American system of government, rests on this case about a minor
dispute over a trivial issue. What made it momentous was the principle
involved.
The "So what?" defense of Bill Clinton that has been used repeatedly by his
defenders would surely have applied equally to somebody trying to get a job
in the D.C. government.
The momentous stakes in the impeachment of Bill Clinton are ultimately not
about him or his sexual activities. The momentous issue is whether the
president of the United States -- which means future presidents, even more
so than Clinton himself -- shall have the dangerous power to violate federal
laws against perjury and obstruction of justice.
The reason perjury laws are so crucial, and the punishment of them so
severe, is that perjury can cover up all sorts of other crimes and abuses.
So can obstruction of justice.
The question is not what those other crimes are. Once presidents are able
to defy the judicial system and remain in office, the whole governmental
balance of power, on which the rule of law depends, is jeopardized. If any
lesson is written in blood across the pages of history, it is that you
cannot trust anybody with unbridled power.
If the worst we had to fear in the future was cheap sex in the White House,
none of this would be worth arguing about, much less appointing a special
prosecutor or impeaching a president. Neither would it have been worthwhile
to have appointed a special prosecutor or to have started impeachment
proceedings over a burglary at the Watergate Hotel that was nipped in the
bud, with nothing taken and nobody hurt.
In Watergate, everyone understood that the real issues were obstruction of
justice and whether the president was above the law. If the difference
between the Watergate impeachment and the current impeachment is that we the
public are no longer capable of understanding the lasting impact of
principles and precedents, then that is the most dangerous degeneration of
all.
A censure vote would make things even worse. What would Bill Clinton be
censured for if he were not guilty, or if what he was guilty of was his own
private life? Censure would announce that we find the president guilty but
will not take any action beyond words. It would be as if the jury in the
O.J. Simpson murder case had taken a second vote, saying that they knew he
was guilty but had decided to let him off anyway.
What message would that send to future presidents? That they don't even
have to worry about getting caught violating the law, if they are popular?
That is truly playing with fire and disregarding the future of this country
for the sake of today's
01/26/99:Moral bankruptcy in the schools
01/22/99: Who is going to convict Santa Claus?
01/19/99: Seeing through the spin
01/13/99: A trial is a trial is a trial
01/11/99:Trials and tribulations
01/08/99: Rays of hope
01/04/99: Random thoughts
12/31/98: The President versus the presidency
12/29/98: The time is now!
12/23/98: World-class hypocrisy
12/21/98: The spreading corruption
12/17/98: Politically "contrite"
12/16/98: Polls and partisanship
12/14/98: The "non-profit" halo
12/11/98: Corruption and confusion
12/03/98: The health care "crisis"
11/30/98: Knowing what you are talking about
11/23/98: The impeachment legacy
11/23/98: Random thoughts
11/19/98: Tales out of bureaucracies
11/16/98: Scholarships based on scholarship
11/12/98: Forward march
11/09/98: Moral outrage
11/05/98: Will the Republicans ever learn?
11/02/98: A voter's duty
10/30/98: The poverty pimp's poem
10/29/98: Random thoughts on the election
10/27/98: "Partisan" and "unfair"
10/23/98: Ed-u-kai-tchun
10/21/98: McGwire, Maris and the Babe
10/20/98: MURDER IS MURDER!
10/16/98: Lightweight Boxer
10/14/98: A strange word
10/09/98: Impeachment standards
10/08/98: Alternatives to seriousness
10/07/98: Heredity, environment and talk
10/02/98: A much-needed guide
10/01/98: Starr's real crime
9/24/98: Costs and power
9/18/98: Are we sheep?
9/16/98: Judicial review
9/15/98: Hillary Rodham Crook?
9/14/98: Taking stock
9/11/98: Moment of truth
9/04/98: Random thoughts
8/31/98: The twilight of special prosecutors?
8/26/98: "Doing a good job"
8/24/98: America on trial?
8/19/98: Played for fools
8/17/98: A childish letter
8/11/98: Hiding behind a woman
8/07/98: A flying walrus in Washington?
8/03/98: "Affordability" strikes again
7/31/98: Random thoughts
7/27/98: Faith and mountains
7/24/98: Clinton in Wonderland
7/20/98: Where is black 'leadership' leading?
7/16/98: Do 'minorities' really have it that bad?
7/14/98: Race dialogue: same old stuff
7/10/98: Honest history
7/09/98: Dumb is dangerous
7/02/98: Gun-safety starts with
parental responsibility
6/30/98: When more is less
6/29/98: Are educators above the law?
6/26/98: Random Thoughts
6/24/98: An angry letter
6/22/98: Sixties sentimentalism
6/19/98:Dumbing down anti-trust
6/15/98: A changing of the guard?
6/11/98: Presidential privileges
6/8/98: Fast computers and slow antitrust
6/3/98: Can stalling backfire?
5/29/98: The insulation of the Left
5/25/98: Missing the point in the media
5/22/98: The lessons of Indonesia
5/20/98: Smart but silent
5/18/98: Israel, Clinton and character
5/14/98: Monica Lewinsky's choices
5/11/98: Random thoughts
5/7/98: Media obstruction of justice
5/4/98: Dangerous "safety"
5/1/98:
Abolish Adolescence!
4/30/98: The naked truth
4/22/98: Playing fair and square
4/19/98: Bad teachers"
4/15/98: "Clinton in Africa
"
4/13/98: "Bundling and unbundling
"
4/9/98: "Rising or falling Starr
"
4/6/98: "Was Clinton ‘vindicated'?
"
3/26/98: "Diasters -- natural and political"
3/24/98: "A pattern of behavior"
3/22/98: Innocent explanations
3/19/98: Kathleen Willey and Anita Hill
3/17/98: Search and destroy
3/12/98: Media Circus versus Justice
3/6/98: Vindication
3/3/98: Cheap Shot Time
2/26/98: The Wrong Filter
2/24/98: Trial by Media
2/20/98: Dancing Around the Realities
2/19/98: A "Do Something" War?
2/12/98: Julian Simon, combatant in a 200-year war
2/6/98: A rush to rhetoric