Constitutional Law Scholars Say Public Will Be the Judge
|
|
Experts on constitutional law said yesterday that some of the scathing accusations in the report by the Whitewater independent counsel could, if proven, be appropriately defined as impeachable offenses within the meaning of the Constitution. But in interviews after they had read the report, several of them said that because impeachment is defined as a political process by the Constitution, the question of whether Mr. Clinton’s actions merited removal from office depends not on legal analysis but on the public reaction to the details of 445-page report. The legal experts based their conclusions on the history of impeachments and the vagueness of the Constitution’s statement that a President can be removed for ”high crimes and misdemeanors.” ”My sense is, given the very fuzzy boundaries of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ sure, this is a case for impeachment,” said Richard D. Parker, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. ”But that doesn’t tell me whether impeachment or impeachment hearings are best for the country.” The quality of the report by the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, is certain to be at the center of an intense debate in the coming weeks, with Mr. Starr’s critics decrying it as a purely political assault, and critics of the President praising it as a powerful justification for removing him from office. More : query.nytimes.com |