|
Letter from Committee Democrats on setting impeachment standards
The following is the text of the letter sent by Judiciary Democrats to Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde:
November 11, 1998
The Honorable Henry H. Hyde
Chairman
House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn HOuse Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Hyde:
On November 3rd, the American people sent a clear signal that it is long past time for this Committee to end its impeachment inquiry. Indeed, it is our view that American public opinion and the vast majority of scholarly opinion appear to be consonant on this fact: the president's conduct, however inappropriate, does not warrant the use of the Constitution's most drastic and seldom-used step of decapitation of the executive branch through impeachment.
However, if you continue to believe that the Committee should continue this inquiry, then we would, as ranking Members of the Committee and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, make a procedural request which serves both the interest of expedition and fair process: we request that you convene a meeting within the next week so that the Committee may vote on the focused issue of whether any of the allegations made by Independent Counsel Starr in his September 9, 1998 Referral to Congress, if assumed to be true, could constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Clinton.
Such a procedure, similar to the "demurrer" and "summary judgement" standards which are routinely applied in the courts throughout the country, could help us avoid a divisive inquiry that is not warranted by the Constitution, which the American people do not want, and that would likely be regarded as partisan in nature. A debate concerning impeachment standards would not necessitate that the Committee adopt an abstract definition of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Rather, each Member could be able to decide if the specific allegations made by Mr. Starr, even if assumed true, meet whatever standard he or she believes is appropriate for impeachment.
Given that the Subcommittee on the Constitution has finally conducted a hearing om the standards for impeachment, it is time for the Committee to take a sober step back and consider the constitutional imperative before us. At Monday's hearing, we learned that presidential impeachment is indeed an awesome constitutional weapon, reserved for the most serious forms of abuse of executive office. Impeachment was variously referred to as a "cage lion" and an "atom bomb" by the witnesses. We also learned that in the entire history of our Republic, the House has only impeached a public official on 15 occasions. Only one president has ever been impeached by the House, Andrew Johnson, and the Senate refused to convict in that case, in part because it believed the charges to be motivated by partisan politics.
In this regard, it is important to note that at the same time prominent witnesses called by Democrats, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, and Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein testified that nothing set forth in the Starr report rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors (Prof. Sunstein stated, "it is entirely clear that thus far the charges made by Judge Kenneth Starr....do not make out an appropriate or legitimate case for impeachment") other witnesses called by Republicans questioned the imperative of moving ahead to impeach the President. For example, Duke Law Professor William Van Alstyne stated that the allegation by Mr. Starr constituted "low crimes and misdemeanors," and that "[t]he further impeachment pursuit of Mr. Clinton may well not now be particularly worthwhile." Former Attorney General Griffin Bell, also called by Republicans, further questioned the reliance on judicial impeachment precedents as a basis to impeach a president. Finally, even the jointly called witness, William and Mary Law Professor Michael Gearhardt, downplayed the theory that a president could be impeached for private misconduct: "Most if not all impeachments made by the House and convictions made by the Senate have followed or approximated the paradigm of an impeachment -- the abuse of official power of privilege." Furthermore, at least one Republican Member of the Committee stated that in his opinion some allegations clearly do not meet the constitutional standard.
Now that the scholars have provided us with their views, we believe it is incumbent that the Members of the Judiciary Committee be permitted to publicly state their own positions on the meaning of "Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the context of the allegations before us. If the Committee concludes that nothing in the Starr Referral, if assumed to be true, rises to the level of an impeachable offense under the Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, we will be able to put this national ordeal behind us and move on the the people's business.
We would also note that calling any witnesses is inappropriate in the absence of such a Committee determination. Unless the Committee determines if any of the allegations, even if assumed true, meet the constitutional standard, it is hard for any member to pursue any relevant line of inquiry.
Such a finding by the Committee would in no way serve to condone the President's misbehavior or in any manner signal that he is somehow "above the law." All of the hearing witnesses questioned on this point acknowledged that the President is subject to prosecution after he leaves office.
We look forward to your prompt response to this important matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
/s/
Robert C. Scott
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Constitution
|
Full Coverage