Re: Democracy...

[Kevin Elliott <k-elliott@wiu.edu>]

>I agree with you completely when you state that religion, ethics, and
>law are distinct and different things.  Unfortunately in the United
>States they have a strong tendency to become intertwined.  The law as it
>stands is that impeachment is only to be used in cases of high crimes
>and misdemeanors.  Now I have not read the entire Starr report nor do I
>have a sophisticated background in law nevertheless nothing Bill has
>done seems to qualify as worthy of impeachment under the law.  However,
>the sexual acts and behaviour exhibited by him is deeply repugnant to
>many on ethical grounds and particularly repugnant to Christians
>specifically.  I do not have any problem at all with those who are
>disgusted by the presidents behaviour on ethical or religious grounds, I
>personally find it repulsive.  I do however feel, as I believe you are
>saying also,  that the law is law.  It should be executed in a fair and
>just manner and according to the letter ( which may or may not lead to
>impeachment ).  The previous poster to which I replied seemed to be very
>clearly stating that his personal religious code of ethics took
>precedence over american legal codes,  a viewpoint which I cannot agree
>with.  All debate on the precice origin and validity of 'seperation of
>church and state' aside I cannot recall any part of the constitution
>which invokes divine justice.  The impeachment issue is not one of
>ethics or religion, simply law and law alone.
>
>Vivek Vaidya

I a word, bullshit.  The constitution the way the constitution was phrased
makes it very clear- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMMIT A CRIME TO BE GUILTY OF
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!!! Many people have been impeached in Americas history
and most were not guilty of a crime, ie their offenses were not legal
crimes or they were never prosecuted for the crime they were impeached and
tried for.  Fact- the president has commited perjury.  That is undeniable,
Starr has presented his evidence very clearly and I don't think that needs
to be rehashed.  Are his actions sufficient to yield a criminal conviction
in the "real world"?  In a general sense yes but in a broader sense that is
completely irrelevant to the question at had.  A parking ticket is
suffiecent to qualify as an impeachable offense under the constitution
("high crimes and MISDEMEANORS) but again that isn't relevant.  For the
sake of argument I will through out all criminal conduct, all perjury
issues, obstruction of justice, possible sexual assault, everything.  What
we are left with is a president who engaged in gross sexual misconduct with
a women under his employment.  That is ethical misconduct of the most
aggregious kind.  It undermines authority, disturbs professional atmosphere
necessary for a smoothly functioning organization.  In any corporation in
America it would, by custom and, in some jurisdictions, law, be grounds for
immediate dismissal.  Impeachment is exactly that.  It imposes no
punishments, no jail time, no fines, it simply removes an official from the
position he has failed to faithfully execute.



___________________________________________________________________________
"DOS/WIN based computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq,
Tandy, and millions of others, are by far the most popular, with about 70
million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, note
that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone
do not denote a higher life form." - New York Times

-Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:k-elliott@wiu.edu>