Impeachment or Censure?

This week was the week that was!  President Clinton publicly stated his willingness to accept a censure by the House of Representatives for his alleged perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.  The Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee unsuccessfully proposed a censure motion acknowledging the President's alleged wrong-doing.  And, two-thirds of those Americans polled indicated that they preferred censure rather than impeachment of the President.

Nonetheless, as the week was drawing to a close, Republican momentum in the House of Representatives was building toward a vote for impeachment of the President.  The ensuing debate over the question of whether the House of Representatives should impeach or censure the President has elevated passions to a crescendo, masking what the  debate is about.

The House debate over impeachment or censure is not about sex.  It is not about immorality.  It is not about character flaws.  It is not about President Clinton.  It is not about Republicans or Democrats.  It is about three tenants that are the basis of American jurisprudence.  These tenants are: (1) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; (2) no one is above the law; and (3) everyone is equal before the law.

The first tenant, as set forth in Article VI of the Constitution, is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If one accepts the Constitution as the supreme land of the land, the Congress must abide by the constitutional process of impeachment in passing judgment on the President for alleged misconduct in office. 

As prescribed by the Constitution, the House of Representatives has no express authority to adjudicate the President's guilt or innocence.  Its authority, which is similar to a grand jury, is limited to determining whether or not substantial and credible evidence exists to bring charges against a public officer for misconduct in office.  Impeachment by the House of Representatives is, therefore, akin to an indictment and not a verdict. 

Thus, there is no constitutional basis for the censuring of the President by the House of Representatives.  It is an extra constitutional action that would short circuit the constitutional process of impeachment, wrongly placing the President's fate and punishment in the House's hands. 

Such a de facto amendment of the Constitution would serve to promote the unwise precedent of judging the President in the House rather than in the deliberate body of the Senate.  Further, it would serve to erode the Constitution by circumventing it as the supreme law of the land.

The second tenant is that no one is above the law!  This central value of American jurisprudence is rooted in the English Magna Carta.  Faced with the abuse of power by King John of England, English noblemen and high churchmen forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D.  This epochal document established for the first time that the ruler must govern according to the law.  Consequently, no one, to include the ruler, is above the law. 

The tenant that no one is above the law has framed the historical relationship between the American people and their leaders since the inception of our nation.  It asserts that every citizen must be held to the same standards of law and accountability, regardless of rank and position in society. 

Neither the President nor any rich, powerful or famous citizen, should be given a pass when substantial and credible evidence raises the specter that they may have disregarded our nation's laws.  The rule of law must apply to all citizens, to include presidents, governors, legislators, judges and local officials. 

If our nation's leaders are to govern according to the law, they must be held to the same standards of law and accountability as every other citizen! 

The House of Representatives, therefore, must not abandon the impeachment process for the short term political expedient of censure.  Censure by the House would weaken the tenant that no one is above the law by subjugating America's fundamental belief in the "unalienable rights of man " for the ancient precept of the "divine rights of kings".

The third tenant is that each citizen shall be judged equally before the law.  This tenant is found in the equal protection clause of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution.  This clause firmly implies that the actions of each and every citizen should be measured against the same standards of law and accountability.  No one is to be treated more fairly or less fairly. 

Censure by the House of Representatives, however, would constitute an adjudication of wrong-doing without an admission of guilt or a verdict of guilt.  This could invite a double standard of justice-- one standard for the rich and powerful, another standard for the poor and ordinary. 

A double standard of justice would serve to disregard the constitutional assurance that each and every citizen should be accorded the equal protection of the laws.  This, in turn, could place into jeopardy the significant gains in racial equality, equal justice for the poor and equal treatment for women made possible by adherence to the equal protection clause.
     
Given the possible ramifications of censure on the three tenants that form the basis of American jurisprudence, the House of Representatives has no recourse but to adhere to the constitutional process of impeachment by voting on the articles of impeachment---not censure. 

Whether a majority vote is attained or not, the House of Representatives, by voting on the articles of impeachment, will be correctly adhering to the impeachment process as set forth by the Constitution.  If a majority vote is attained, the adjudication of the articles of impeachment will be properly referred to the Senate for trial as set forth by the Constitution.  If a majority vote is not attained, the impeachment process will end at that point as set forth by the Constitution.

  If the articles of impeachment are referred to the Senate, the President, as in any trial, will be afforded the opportunity for a full and fair hearing presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  If the Senate fails to find the President guilty by a two-thirds vote, he will be vindicated of his alleged violations of law.  If the Senate finds the President guilty, the arguments over his alleged violations of law will be settled.   

Regardless of the outcome in the Senate, the House of Representatives, by choosing impeachment over censure would reaffirm for future generations that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that no one is above the law and that everyone is equal before the law.

To do otherwise for the sake of public opinion, public favor and political expediency would clearly place these fundamental tenants of American jurisprudence at risk.