A Stain on the U.S. Senate

Just as Monica Lewinsky's soiled dress stained the Office of the Presidency, the senate impeachment trial of President Clinton stained the institution of the U.S. Senate.

To fully comprehend how the impeachment trial stained the senate, one must revisit the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which gave life to the American democracy.  During almost four months of debate, the convention's delegates were ever mindful of two underlying fears that served to shape the structure, responsibilities and powers of  our representative democracy.

These two fears were the potential tyranny of a too strong national government and the potential tyranny of unchecked majority pressures.  Regarding the latter, convention delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts warned, "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.  The people do not want virtue, but are dupes of pretended patriots".

In order to check the potential excess of popular government, the framers of the Constitution established the fundamental purpose of the senate as that of safeguarding the American democracy from unchecked majority pressures fueled by public passions.  For this reason, the framers recognized that the senate must be a deliberating body where constitutional principle, personal integrity, reasoned judgment and political courage prevail.   

By design, the Constitution seeks to insure that the senate is a deliberating body by insulating it from public passions.  Thus, the age and citizenship requirements for the senate are greater than for the house of representatives.  The term of office for the senate is six years as opposed to two years for the house of representatives.  And, only one-third of the senate seats are up for election during the biennial general elections compared to all 435 seats of the house of representatives.   

The institutional duty of the Senate of the 106th Congress was, therefore, to give a full, fair and impartial hearing to the articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton by the house of representatives.  Nonetheless, the senate failed in its institutional duty.  Succumbing to the public opinion polls, senate members of both parties abandoned any pretense of a full, fair and impartial hearing.  Thus, the articles of impeachment were dead on arrival because the senate outcome was procedurally preordained. 

In  John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage, senators who bravely withstood public passions to safeguard the American democracy from the tyranny of majority pressures were chronicled as pillars of courage.  Unlike those brave senators of the past, the Democrat and Republican senators of the 106th Congress cowardly pandered to the polls to safeguard their senate seats. 

Made cowards by the polls, both Democrat and Republican senators betrayed the very institution that they professed to revere.  They disregarded the truth for the polls.  They rushed to judgment for the polls.  They sacrificed moral conviction for the polls.  They surrendered constitutional principle for the polls.  They cast aside personal integrity for the polls. 

In any given week, one could find at least one-fifth of the senators of both parties pandering to public passions as "talking heads" on  network and cable TV news shows stooping to "spin" rather than rising to principle. 

On any given day, one could find senators pandering to public passions by seeking political cover in extra constitutional measures with Democrats championing censure and  Republicans advocating a finding of fact. 

  At any given moment, one could find senators pandering to public passions by their willingness to condemn President Clinton's misconduct in office by uttering empty words rather than pursuing a full, fair and impartial hearing.

Illustrative of this pusillanimous pandering to public passions were the actions of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). 

Sen. Byrd, the unofficial conscience of the senate, during a TV interview with ABC's Cokie Roberts, said he had concluded that President Clinton had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors".  In the next breath, he added that he might let President Clinton off because "he has less than two years to serve, the economy is strong and most people want him to stay." 

Not surprisingly, Sen. Byrd abandoned conviction and voted "not guilty" on both articles of impeachment.   What ignoble hypocrisy! 
   
Sen. Arlen Specter, a former prosecutor once charged with the responsibility of upholding the rule of law, contributed to its demise by not having the fortitude to come to a finding based on the evidence presented.  Feigning a search for the truth, he accused his fellow senators of rushing to judgment, hoping to find political refuge in an old Scottish law verdict of "not proved". 

Not surprisingly, Sen. Specter sacrificed principle and, after unsuccessfully attempting to vote "not proved," voted "not guilty" on both articles of impeachment.   What despicable deception!

Because of the senate charade, the truth was heard but not acknowledged.  Because of the senate charade, the President was acquitted but not vindicated.  Because of the senate charade, the political deception has not ended but has continued.

Democrat and Republican senators, with the final roll call vote still echoing, began a disingenuous campaign of self-righteously spinning the Senate trial and verdict as an example of how well the senate fulfilled its institutional duty and how well it served to strengthen the Constitution.

Both of Florida's senators, Sen. Bob Graham and Sen. Connie Mack, the very morning following the end of the trial, were willing soldiers in the senate's campaign of deception. 

Sen. Graham declared, "The President's acquittal will uphold the sanctity of the office and prevent a weakening of the balance of powers that protects our individual rights and liberties."  Poppycock!   

Sen. Mack, not to be outdone by his senate colleague, proclaimed, "I am proud of the U.S. Senate and how it conducted itself during this process.  Despite extraordinary  difficulty, we did our job according to the Constitution and to the best of our ability."  Poppycock! 

No, Sen. Graham and Sen. Mack, the undeniable truth is that you and your senate colleagues have failed, not succeeded, in forthrightly fulfilling your duty.  You and your senate colleagues, by attempting to circumvent the Constitution, have weakened, not  strengthened it.  You and your senate colleagues, by playing to the polls, have betrayed, not served our representative democracy. 

But, yes, Sen. Mack, you are correct in your conclusion that "In the end, however, history will be the final arbiter."