Un pedazo de historia que vale la pena repetir:
Rep. Barr's Letter to Mrs. Clinton Re: Herr Defense of Impeachment "Mrs.
Clinton's Defense of Impeachment," by Bob Barr, as Appearing in the Wall
Street Journal, April 25, 1997
Dear Mrs. Clinton:
In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a
report produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with
developing a scholar memorandum setting forth the "constitutional
grounds for presidential impeachment."
You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am
sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the
year, Nixon would leave office disgraced , having witnessed articles of
impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in
part on your report.
I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to have
let personal animus influence your work product, at least not the
final, published report. In fact, the report you and your colleagues
produced appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with
other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is
every bit as relevant today as it was 23 years ago.
I presume--but I must ask whether--you stand by your research and
analysis today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the
framers of our constitution, reflected the long history of the term used
at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the tools used by the
English" to make government "more responsive and responsible" (page 4 of
your report).
You also noted then--clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed
impeachment as a tool to correct "corruption in office" that "alleged
damage to the state," and was "not necessarily limited to common law or
statutory . . . Crimes" (page 7)
You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention
described the executive (that is, the president) as not being above the
law, but rather "in his public character" subject to it "by impeachment"
(page 9)
You also-quite correctly-noted then that the constitutional draftsmen
chose the terms describing the circumstances under which a president
could be impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that
"high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the
sense that prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in
your well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase
"high crimes and misdemeanors" as substituted for George Mason's less
precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution:
"Maladministration" (page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your
further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws
of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and
misdemeanors" meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or
system of government (page 12). I applaud the extent and clarity of
your research.
You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of
intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors"
not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant
when they adopted them (page12 once again). Magnificent research!
Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from
his Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public
men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust"
that is "of a nature . . .political [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of
your report).
Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional
drafting documents themselves, you find support for your properly broad
interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in no less a legal
scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice
Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833) supporting your
proposition that "impeachment . . . applies to offenses of �a political
character'... [that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive
principles of public policy and duty" (pages 16 and 17 of your report).
I could not have said it better.
You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has been
employed in our country's history "placed little emphasis on criminal
conduct" and were used to remove public officials who had "seriously
undermined public confidence" through their "course of conduct" (page
21).
Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the House
should take but the first step in determining whether impeachment might
lie against President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and
improper administration of his duties, little did I realize your
scholarly work 23 years ago would provide clear historical and legal
basis and precedent for my proposition.
Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical to
those I use today. For example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my
March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that "[i]mpeachment
is the first step in a remedial process" (page 24 of your report) to
correct "serious offenses" that "subvert"our government and "undermine
the integrity of office" (page 26)
Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning
our inquiry.
Sincerely,
Bob Barr (R., GA.)
Member of Congress
