• Steven Cuckler is a second year day student, president of the Federalist Society, and a staff editor of the Federalists’ Paper.

 The liberal Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee declared in a proposed censure resolution that Bill Clinton "made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct" and "wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth."  They further added that he "dishonored his office and violated the trust of the American people."  Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., extolled by the media as the great keeper of Senate tradition, admitted that he had "no doubt that the President had given false testimony under oath."  Byrd further added that, "there are indications that the President did indeed obstruct justice."  The "great keeper" articulated to Cokie Roberts of ABC News that these are, "indeed high crimes and misdemeanors.  However, the President should not be removed for them."  Unfortunately, this sort of irrational, partisan, “God save the (Democrats’) King” mentality pervaded the United States Senate chamber, especially the President’s most ardent defenders, the Senate Democrats.

 Article II, section 4 of our Constitution, states that "The President, Vice-President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."   It does not state that if offenses that warrant removal from office have been committed that they can be overlooked if he is popular, and the Dow Jones is near 10,000.  According to William J. Bennett in a recent column entitled, "Scandal's Lessons are Many,” the House Republicans took a big political risk because of their dedication to justice.  This was a noble act, even if it is not recognized as such.  At every step in the process Republicans could have dropped the impeachment issue, won praise from the elite media, and followed the polls that suggest the American people weren't with them.  Instead they decided to do their duty.  The House of Representatives were right to impeach Mr. Clinton for his crimes.

 It is disappointing that so few senators researched their precedent in impeachment trials.  If you look at past trials, you will observe that federal judges have been removed for far less crimes than those charged against President Clinton.  In 1803, the Senate convicted Judge John Pickering because he was a "man of loose morals and intemperate habits."  Basically, the old judge showed up drunk at trials and used the Lord's name in vain.    In 1986, the Senate convicted Judge Harry Claiborne on charges stemming from income tax evasion.  In 1989 Judge Alcee Hastings was convicted for accepting a $150,000 bribe.  And, just a few weeks after Hastings, Judge Walter Nixon suffered conviction for committing perjury.  To most people these convictions seem reasonable.  However, many of the President's defenders in the Senate stated that judges are different because of the "good behavior" clause to which they must swear an oath.  It is absurd to think that Federal judges are to be held to a higher standard than the President of the United States.  The Senate was wrong not to convict.
 In my Civil Procedure class last year, we learned how vital truth is to a judicial proceeding.  Any person who commits perjury, and suborns it, truly obstructs the purpose of the law in protecting the innocent and judging the guilty.  Perjury is real and punished.  Presently, there are about 150 people in federal prison for committing perjury.

 President Washington in his farewell address asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"  Unfortunately, the United States Senate has set a bad precedent that may allow falsehoods, false statements, and lies to run freely in our judicial system.

 Another crucial foundation of our judicial system is that no one, including the President, is above the law.  Our Founding Fathers experienced what it was like when a ruler was above the law.  King George III was a tyrant who oppressed the colonists' freedom and liberty.  The framers of the Constitution knew that for a democratic republic to function we must all be subjected equally to the law.  Moreover, the President takes an oath to faithfully execute the law, and uphold our Constitution.

 Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist number 65 that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate is precisely the proper remedy for "the abuse or violation of some public trust."  Clinton's defenders admitted that he "violated the trust of the American people."  Also, there is a fundamental inconsistency between a president's oath and his having himself committed offenses indictable under that law.    Furthermore, Clinton's defenders said that this was a not "crime against the state," and therefore removal was not warranted.  However, when the Senate let him off the hook they committed a "crime against the state," because it created two tiers of justice.  One for us, and another for Bill Clinton.