Back when former President Clinton was being impeached, many of our current Congressmen and Senators were involved in the process. Men like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Henry Hyde, among others, came out strongly in support of the impeachment of Clinton based upon the highest standard of "rule of law."
Today, as impeachment makes its way back into the American vernacular, this time related to George W. Bush, the following quotes become quite illuminating.
While reading them, perhaps ask yourself, 'What happened to the "rule of law?"
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."
"I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door."
"What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don't accept the responsibility for them."
"There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"
"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
"When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority — for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator — had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: "The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
This is why the parliamentary system, with it's 'vote of no-confidence' is so effective, when not monopolised by single-party monoliths, as India was for a few decades.
2 - Baronius
Bulldog, which of these people has subsequently said that Bush is above the law?
3 - Matthew T. Sussman
Hoo-wee! Quotes without context!
I see this tactic everywhere. There's a string of quotes going around back from after 9/11 from Democratic politicians saying Iraq is a threat.
And some from Republicains in the late '90s saying Clinton shouldn't go to war.
It's like a bad episode on the Food Network:
"Here, taste these quotes."
"Meh."
"What's wrong?"
"They're flavorless."
"Oh shit, I forgot to add a teapoon of context!"
4 - The Bulldog Manifesto
Matthew,
If you want the context of the quote, please feel free to click on the link I provided for each name. You can read each person's full record.
Nice try.
5 - RogerMDillon
How are these quotes without context? They are about these men's attitudes towards Clinton and his impeachment. It's in the title and the first paragraph.
6 - The Bulldog Manifesto
Baronius,
Nice straw man argument. LOL. The point is, none of these same "holier than thou" politicians who were so concerned with the "rule of law" are saying a peep against Bush and his obvious violation of federal statute and the Constitution.
7 - Shark
"Hoo-wee! Quotes without context!"
Hoo-wee! A meaningless potshot [Deleted. You know why. As a quick sidebar, aka diversion, I'd just like to say this debate is a perfect example of one of the worst aspects of current US politics. It does neither your country nor the whole wide(r) world any good. And it's boring. Comments Editor]
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
I take back most of what I said.
Most. Delay's quote has no context. The linked post is the same as the blockquote.
This is also similar to when Democrats hate it when Republicans say "But Clinton did it." Now, in this case it's "But Republicans said it."
I think it's more wise to investigate Bush in this instance rather than time travel back. This wiretapping thing merits debate on whether or not Bush should have the authority to do such a thing.
And I'm not too keen on Republicans defending it with "B-b-b-b-but Carter and Clinton! They're Democrats!"
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Neither Frist's quote.
10 - RogerMDillon
Now we have editing with off-topic commentary?! When you guys look to hire an editor for the editors, please let me know.
11 - Dave Nalle
I think those quotes are pretty clearly in the context of the Clinton impeachment and they're long enough to stand on their own.
The real relevant point here is made by Baronius in #2. I don't believe that any of these people have taken positions recently which contradict any of these quotes. Not one of those guys has officially changed his position on ethics or the rule of law.
Dave
12 - Christopher Rose
Roger: You're welcome to contact me directly if you'd care to give me some food for thought. But what do you think of the News story Mr Bulldog (or should that be Mr Manifesto?) wrote?
13 - gonzo marx
Comments Editor sez...
*I'd just like to say this debate is a perfect example of one of the worst aspects of current US politics. It does neither your country nor the whole wide(r) world any good. And it's boring. Comments Editor]*
now THAT is just a lovely picture into an Editor's concept of free speech and public debate
allow me to Respecfully disagree [Apologies for jumpinmg in here, Mr Marx sir, but my remarks were directed at the comments, not the post itself. The debate had shifted to personalities not the topic. We can get into the wider topic anther time if you like. I bring no concepts here except the Comments Policy. Thanks. Comments Editor]
the original Post indeed does show many things, it shows how Legislative leadership felt about the Issue at the time and how they spoke on the Record
ya see...this is known as a "petard"
and what Bulldog did, was hoist some folks by it
now, you can say it is a sad commentary on the state of american Politics...but i put it to you all, that this is NOTHING "new"
as proven by the Quotes
interesting to note that DeLay is currently under indictment and Frist is under investigation by the S.E.C.
now, i'm not one screaming "impeachment" or anything like that...yet
however, if it does prove to be correct that the President in fact ordered Federal Law to be Violated...well then, the Rule of Law is quite clear
thanks for the Post Bulldog...the Quotes and the links...
Excelsior!
14 - Al Barger
Well this BM is pretty much BS, cause it's based on unstated and false premises. Yup, if the president is committing felonies and lying under oath, that's grounds for impeachment. Bush is nothing like that.
Down in the comments, you have another little BM, "Bush and his obvious violation of federal statute and the Constitution." Back up, jack. I see no such things. Those are facts absolutely not in evidence.
Before these quotes would have any meaning like what the author intends, he'd have to in fact establish felonious activity. You haven't even started towards doing that.
15 - gonzo marx
ummm, sorry ta break it to ya big Al...but W has stated that he ordered those taps and that he felt he coudl do so
those actions are in clear violation of the federal FISA laws, and ANY type or "search" or "surveilance" without a Court Order woudl appear to be a violation of the Constitution on many counts
all that being said...you are being fallacious when you state
*Well this BM is pretty much BS, cause it's based on unstated and false premises.*
when the Post is all about Quoting GOP members abotu how they feel concerning the Law and the President
so where's the BS?
i think it might be strewn all over yer keyboard
try harder
Excelsior!
16 - Matthew T. Sussman
Gonzo, what's a better way to discuss grounds for impeachment?
Talk about what Bush did?
Or talk about what the GOP said about Clinton?
17 - Dave Nalle
the original Post indeed does show many things, it shows how Legislative leadership felt about the Issue at the time and how they spoke on the Record
ya see...this is known as a "petard"
and what Bulldog did, was hoist some folks by it
This would be true had he provided some contemporary quotes where they tried to excuse the current administration for their misbehavior, but he didn't. As it stands it's just a sort of historical retrospective with nothing really tying it to current events, though a few of those comments - like the second to last one from Frist do stand on their own as remarkably stupid.
Dave
18 - Baronius
Bulldog, there is plenty of debate about whether Bush violated any statutes. No one is saying that Bush violated the Constitution. (Maybe someone is, but I mean people who don't drool.)
None of those people you quoted have called for an abandonment of the rule of law. They just dare to disagree with your interpretation of Bush's actions. We only have two examples of impeachment politics in the past 100 years, during the Nixon and Clinton presidencies. In the 1970's the Republicans showed themselves willing to impeach a leader of their own party. The Democrats have shown no such honorable behaviour.
I think that if Bush is found to have broken the law, D's and R's will drive him out of town. We may one day see if I'm wrong. But you're condemning Republicans for the way you expect them to act. You may as well criticize Frist for not beating Charlemagne at tennis.
19 - MDE
You are familiar with the concept of preemptive stike?
20 - Dave Nalle
I think that if Bush is found to have broken the law, D's and R's will drive him out of town.
Clinton was found to have broken the law and wasn't driven out of town. It's entirely possible that Bush could also be impeached and face no real penalty for it.
There is also one very real and significant difference between Bush's alleged crimes and Clinton's. What Clinton did was a crime committed as a private individual. Bush is being accused as committing crimes as president. That's a huge difference. It makes Bush's alleged crimes potentially much more serious, but it also raises the standard and changes the criteria for defining them as crimes. This isn't something anywhere near as simple as lying about getting a blowjob. There's some question as to whether it's even possible for actions taken by the president in the interests of national security to be considered crimes at all.
Dave
21 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez...
*There's some question as to whether it's even possible for actions taken by the president in the interests of national security to be considered crimes at all.*
no...no there isn't
but i do Agree that all the Facts are not in yet
and Suss...when discussing complex issues, especially where it concerns Law and Politics on this high end level, it hels to set the background and establish the ground Rules
i find it Ironic to the Sublime to have those Quotes, and hundreds more, hanging around
it appears that we are forced to endure an old Chinese Curse...considered the most horrible
"may you live in Interesting Times"
Excelsior!
22 - Dave Nalle
no...no there isn't
There may not be for you, or for me, but we're going to see that argument made, I guarantee it. There are definitely folks who believe that the role of Commander in Chief in time of war pretty much gives Bush carte blanche.
Dave
23 - gonzo marx
if there was a fucking Declaration of War..i might actually agree with you
but there isn't
and in a very real, and legally binding sense(again, that pesky Constitution and Federal Law)that makes it a different ball game
it seems that you and i are of very close Opinion on most of this Mr Nalle...which is encouraging, neither wants any rash bullshit and we have agreed that IF Laws were broken, then those who did so face the apllicable penalties
the big Questions seems to revolve around which Laws are applicable...now, since part of the problem originates with circumventing the entire concept of Separation of Powers(to wit: not going to the proper court(FISA) to gain review and warrants for surveilance)..it will be a wild ride to see who gets to sort all this out
and should make NOvember 06 truly of historic proportions, no matter hwo it sorts out
Excelsior!
24 - Dave Nalle
if there was a fucking Declaration of War..i might actually agree with you
but there isn't
Democratic leaders and legal authorities alike agree that the resolution which authorized the use of force is in all but name the equivalent of a Declaration of War, and it's likely to be viewed that way legally.
it seems that you and i are of very close Opinion on most of this Mr Nalle...which is encouraging, neither wants any rash bullshit and we have agreed that IF Laws were broken, then those who did so face the apllicable penalties
That's another issue, of course - what the hell are the proper penalties for things like this? It's more like the kind of offense which should be addressed by a civil suit rather than any existing criminal penalties.
the big Questions seems to revolve around which Laws are applicable...now, since part of the problem originates with circumventing the entire concept of Separation of Powers(to wit: not going to the proper court(FISA) to gain review and warrants for surveilance)..it will be a wild ride to see who gets to sort all this out
Can't argue with you there.
Dave
25 - Victor Lana
Impeachment is a serious topic, so the words of these men must be taken as such (I mean, that's the contextual element anyway). What is an impeachable offense? Getting, uh-um, satisfied under the Oval Office desk? Sending off American soldiers to die based on a lie? Raiding the offices of a rival party?
It certainly stirs a healthy and necessary discourse.