Slate's Bizbox
dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Ending the Clinton Crisis

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: James Hamilton
to: William Kristol

Posted Tuesday, Oct. 27, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Bill--

As I understand the argument, you (and Charles Krauthammer) oppose censure for essentially two reasons. First, because the business of Congress is legislating and impeaching, and it otherwise has "no role in judging the chief executive." Second, because censure will end "the Clinton scandal and signal the return to normal business," a result you oppose because you want him impeached.
With all deference, I think neither contention carries the day.
Krauthammer and you are too restrictive in describing the functions of Congress, for Congress has other important roles besides legislating or impeaching.
For example, Woodrow Wilson in his seminal 1885 book, Congressional Government, stressed the importance of Congress' role in disseminating its views about governmental matters:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. ... The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The Supreme Court on several occasions has relied on this passage.
Moreover, the Senate and the House often have expressed their judgments through resolutions or concurrent resolutions, which of course do not constitute binding legislation. The House Rules Manual states, "In the modern practice concurrent resolutions have been developed as a means of expressing ... principles, opinions and purposes of the two Houses." Concurrent resolutions have been used for various purposes--for example, to call for humane treatment of prisoners of war in Vietnam.
And, as noted previously, the Senate once passed a resolution censuring President Andrew Jackson.
There thus appears to be no impediment in the Constitution or Senate and House rules to a concurrent resolution censuring the president. Krauthammer's statement that Congress' "job is to remove him--or stick to legislating" significantly understates Congress' powers and prerogatives.
It also is a bit strange for someone from the Republican camp to contend that it's not Congress' job to rebuke the president. Pardon me, but don't members of Congress and its committees rebuke him daily? Turn on C-SPAN; read the Senate Whitewater and campaign finance reports.
Krauthammer and you also oppose censure because it ends the matter and lets the nation get back to "normal business." But, Bill, isn't that what the American people really want? Aren't they sick and tired of hearing, day in, day out, the unsavory details of the Monica Lewinsky matter? Don't they want the president and Congress to be fully engaged in the business of making and executing the laws--that is, in "normal business."
I think the answer to these questions is "yes." The censure proposal we are discussing is a practical way to conclude this matter, while at the same time punishing a president who has acted shabbily.
One final point: You profess some confidence that the impeachment debate in the House and Senate "would be conducted seriously and with dignity." Maybe so, but that conclusion is problematic.
Certainly, the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee did not begin the debate on a high plane by releasing reams of salacious details provided it by Mr. Starr.
Any "debate" about whether the president lied concerning the details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky hardly promises to be edifying. Frankly, I would like to spare the nation's children (including my own) from proceedings that likely would be unseemly, dispiriting, and denigrating, rather than "healthy ... educational and clarifying," as you suggest.

dialogues
entries
12345678
from: James Hamilton
to: William Kristol

Posted Tuesday, Oct. 27, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Hamilton is a partner at the law firm of Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, and Friedman. He was assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate committee and recently defended the continuance of Vincent Foster's attorney-client privilege before the Supreme Court. William Kristol is editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard. He is a regular guest on ABC's This Week With Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap