Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

More thoughts on the impeachment...

Author:Kurt Hoglund
Posted:12/23/1998; 5:17:39 AM
Topic:How are we doing?
Msg #:1698 (In response to 1662)
Prev/Next:1697 / 1700

Dave,

How are we doing? That is something I've been thinking about for awhile and haven't come up with much in the way of conclusions. What little I have come up with isn't pleasing, though.

First: it seems that the entire impeachment is hinging on a he said/she said disagreement and some hearsay (second hand accounts by non-eyewitnesses). There aren't many prosecutors in the US that would try to make a perjury case in this instance.

Second: the justice system in the US in adversarial one. Every case that makes it to trial is trying to judge who is lying (the defendant or the prosecutor). One of the saddest statements I've heard during this entire proceeding is that: "There is almost no case in the court system where some lying under oath doesn't happen." (can't remember where I heard this, however). Yes there are many perjury prosecutions in the US, and this only underscores the level of deceit in the justice system as a whole, and the belief standards of those being brought as witnesses.

Third: the US House of Representatives. Why is the membership set at 435? This was done in 1911 by statute, giving the US 1 representative per every 500,000 citizens. I've been trying to track down the reasoning behind this limit, but can't find the relevant documentation on-line (so I'll have to trek to my local analog storage facility to find it). My suspicions have much to do with the size of the capitol building and costly renovations to accomodate more members. In any event the US had representation of 1:30,000 set as a maximum limit on the number of representatives by the constitution. My suggestion is that if you really want to have representative government, get the 1911 Statute repealed and get a House that would be full of more citizen/legislators instead of lawyer/legislators as is the condition today. Yes a House of over 6,000 representatives would be difficult to run, but with the advent of automated systems it need not be unwieldy. One could imagine a "virtual House" with members using telepresence systems to interact with other members and the full House. Why do this? Well, I couldn't believe that there wasn't one member of the House, on either side of the impeachment that I could even begin to agree with during all of this. Not a single one. These representatives obviously have no real connection left with their constituent base and no idea how to voice the ideas of 500k constituents. The House was meant to be a chamber that would voice the diverse opinions of the American public and in that concept it has failed. My personal opinion is that it has been failing in this role for a number of decades. Enough on this!

Fourth: the President lied under oath. The President should not be above the standards of the law, nor below it. The President should be treated as an ordinary citizen in all instances, only giving deference to the office when it is necessary for the running of the country (deferring prosecution of some offenses until after the President leaves office is an example). See point two. The American public elected the current President twice after knowing that he had affairs in the past and had lied about them until forced to come clean on the matters. The President is also a politician, and politicians also lie about a number of things as a matter of course. Many married citizens who have affairs have lied about it, and would continue to do so if it meant saving personal embarrasment. And they would not be prosecuted for it if such action was not a material part of a criminal prosecution. As long as such actions have not endangered the country or subverted the government, the President should be liable only for criminal prosecution once the current term is ended.

Five: is the President the moral "guiding light" of the country? If the American public wants a saint to be President, one would be nominated and elected. Unfortunately, most saints shy away from public office due to the stress of balancing public need against the need to "get things done". The last President with such a high moral standard was not re-elected (I reference here: James Earl Carter who admitted to lusting in his heart) because he couldn't balance the lives of hostages against the need to do the public's business. Using the additional question of: "How will I explain this to my 8-year old?" is a bit disingenuous. This is a world run by adults and what that child needs to be made aware of is the mess that is the adult world. It may be difficult to explain that the President was caught in an embarassing situation that he could not admit to without hurting those he cared about in his family. But, if your child is bright enough to ask the question, your child is probably equally bright to understand a thoughtful answer. I personally do not want to see a country run by the 8-11 year old set, just yet. Although I would like to see a few more adults acting their age.

Six: what is the standard being used for impeachment? I listened to the judiciary committee on the perjury standard. Those in favor of the articles specifically stated that they were not using criminal perjury standards. The criminal standards are well known and understood. In place of that standard, no new standard was put in place to describe what perjury means. To those who roll their eyes at the concept of defining words in context (a subject much joked and groaned about at this point), may I point out that the legal system as defined is built on specific meaning so as to allow a conviction only "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And that means technicalities. And even with all of that, the criminal justice system still puts some innocent people in jail. As for obstruction of justice: various courts have ruled throughout the entire process on the President's use of various priveleges and the President has conformed to all rulings throughout this entire mess. I need a definition for obstruction of justice as given in the impeachment articles.

Seven: the President wears many hats. The President, as I've been referring to it, has been the man who is President as opposed to the Office of the President. The President, until the cold war era, has been allowed to be: a citizen, a spouse, a father, the leader of his party, the chief of the armed forces, the President, and the Head of the Country for foreign representation. Only in the cold war era was the officeholder who was President considered a full-time, 24 hour duty with no days off. Launch on warning and the nuclear arsenal and all that went with it redefined the role of the officeholder who is President. That era is now over and it might be time to cut the officeholder some slack so that there can again be room for a personal life (no matter how tawdry) to exist. And what that officeholder does as personal business does not concern me as long as the business of the country is attended to. Consider the officeholder who is President to be on permanent "flex-time" and be available on a 24 hour basis, but NOT on the job 24 hours a day.

What does this sum up for me, personally? I think that the man elected President was known for his ability to lie, especially about personal matters, but was seen as an extremely effective politician. The President must be able to "compartmentalize" his life, and the current officeholder was elected because he could do just that. I may find him offensive, personally, but that does not mean I can't appreciate the way the man does his political business. Has he lied to the American people? Yes. Does it concern me? Only if it involves the running of the government. Name a President who hasn't lied about something, either implicitly or explicitly to achieve a political goal. If the President lied under oath to cover-up governmental misdeeds or governmental subversion he should be impeached and thrown out of office. If not, then the President should be prosecuted if some prosecutor can make a good, solid case based on the evidence.

Has our representative government been able to properly represent the American people so far? For me at least, the answer is NO. I don't think that it is fair to ask any person to "personally" represent 500k citizens. Give me someone who lives in my neighborhood, that I can talk to and converse with on the matters of state. That is representative government. My representative had made up his mind about this subject some time ago, and no amount of phone calls, e-mail or persuading would move him... not that you could ever be assured of ever getting him to answer the phone or read his mail. I mean, that is what secretaries are for, right? And with so many people to represent, he can't see even a small fraction of them...

What a mess! I'm seriously disappointed with all of the actors in this, high and low.

-KH

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed or numbered. My life is my own!" - The Prisoner



This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:58 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.