Re: Clinton

[Erikus4@aol.com]

>The bottom line is did Clinton commit a "high crime or misdomeanor."  You
>say he did and should be removed

I hope I didn't say that, because my true feeling is that it doesn't matter if
perjury is, in fact, a high crime or misdemeanor - the Constitution is
defectively ambiguous about what  "high crimes and misdemeanors" are.  The
FF's screwed up in detailing the impeachment power.  It doesn't matter what
anyone thinks because the practical impeachment power is such that if an
article of impeachment can pass the House, and the Senate "convicts" then
impeachment and removal has taken place, whether it be for jaywalking or
treason.

Freedom of Speech is also vague but the Court is allowed to define Speech and
such freedom.  The court may not be constitutionally allowed to define "high
crimes and misdemeanors" - but they might.  It's another wonderful question
that Clinton's administration will likely present to the Court.

>I realize my druthers aren't relevant here, but even so.....

If you mean that you realize impeachment isn't a popularity contest - you're
way ahead of the Demos and many of the political pundits who feel the need to
toss Clinton's approval rating around.

Of all the Demo arguments, "perjury isn't impeachable" is the best.  However,
the historical evidence is certainly not clear on the matter.

E. O'Daniel