[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2523-E2524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE ISSUE IS PROTECTING THE RULE OF LAW

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 18, 1999

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to submit for the Record 
a memorandum on the importance of the rule of law in our constitutional 
democracy written by Professor Harold Norris. Widely regarded as one of 
our Nation's foremost constitutional law experts, Professor Norris is 
an emeritus professor of constitutional law at the Detroit College of 
Law at Michigan State University. A man of honor and great integrity, 
Professor Norris shaped the careers of many of Michigan's foremost 
attorneys and members of the State and Federal judiciary. Throughout 
his long life, Professor Norris has been an indefatigable defender of 
the Bill of Rights and the equality under law of all persons. Among his 
many accomplishments was the pivotal role he played in the writing of 
Michigan's revised State constitution in 1963. Professor Norris has 
provided insight on constitutional issues throughout my congressional 
career, most recently during the impeachment proceedings against 
President Clinton. Professor Norris' commitment to the spirit of our 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and his zealous defense of our 
civil liberties should be heeded by all Americans.

               [From the Bradenton Herald, Oct. 19, 1998]

                The Issue Is Protecting the Rule of Law

                      (By Professor Harold Norris)

       On two separate occasions, the American people have decided 
     that William Jefferson

[[Page E2524]]

     Clinton is fit to be President of the United States by 
     electing him to that office.
       To proceed to nullify a presidential election on the basis 
     of authoritarian, privacy-invading questions about sex, 
     questions the government does not have the legal power to 
     ask, is producing irreparable harm to our nation and to its 
     Constitution. There is no crime of perjury arising out of 
     questions the government doesn't have and should not have the 
     legal authority to ask. We must stop this terrible carnal 
     carnival, this tragic, malevolent, partisan, anguishing 
     national experience.
       Electing a president under our Constitution is the most 
     important expression of the political sovereignty of the 
     whole of the American people. To diminish, countermand or 
     nullify the legitimacy of a presidential election for 
     behavior rooted in personal private conduct diminishes, 
     debases and abuses our Constitution, our nation, the office 
     of the president, the rule of law itself. The purpose of the 
     Constitution to unify the nation in opposing to autocracy and 
     to abuse of constitutional authority is being dangerously 
     undermined and diminished by the presently-invoked processes 
     of political and unconstitutional impeachment.
       Perjury and subornation of perjury, rooted and based 
     exclusively upon an illegal invasion of personal privacy like 
     sex, is not ``treason, bribery, or high crimes and 
     misdemeanors.'' Elizabeth Holtzman, former U.S. 
     representative and former New York City prosecutor, concluded 
     in an Op-Ed in the New York Times that perjury in the Clinton 
     matter is a ``manufactured'' crime. She wrote (Aug. 10):
       ``As one of the authors of the original Independent Counsel 
     Act, I never dreamed that a special prosecutor would be using 
     his enormous powers to investigate accusations about a 
     president's private (and legal) sexual conduct. Starr is 
     manufacturing the circumstances in which criminal conduct may 
     occur. . .;''
       Moreover the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Starr 
     using methods short of due process has undermined the 
     credibility of the fact-finding process itself. The President 
     of the United States should be as protected by the Bill of 
     Rights as any person, or else faith and confidence in our law 
     will be seriously damaged.
       Upon assuming office, President Clinton took an oath, as 
     provided by the Constitution, that he would faithfully 
     execute the Office of President and that he would preserve, 
     protect, and defend the Constitution.
       Since the president is elected by all the people to a four-
     year term of office, the framers made it very difficult for 
     him to be removed from office. According to Article II, 
     Section 4 of the Constitution, the president may only be 
     removed from office upon impeachment and conviction for 
     ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' 
     The term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' had a very clear 
     meaning for the framers. It meant a serious abuse of the 
     president's official power or a serious breach of the 
     president's discharge of the official duties of office. Those 
     duties are set forth in Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the 
     Constitution. The framers were acutely aware that abuse of 
     the impeachment process by Congress would upset the balance 
     of power between the three branches of American government if 
     any president could be toppled at will by the Congress.
       The Supreme Court determined in the Paula Jones case that a 
     distinction must be drawn between incidents involving the 
     president in his capacity as a private citizen and those 
     occurring in the course of the exercise of his constitutional 
     duties. Everything connected with Monica Lewinsky and Paula 
     Jones involved the president as a private individual and had 
     nothing whatsoever to do with the presidential office. As 
     President Theodore Roosevelt cogently observed, ``in the 
     United States, no person can be above the law but no person 
     can be below the law, either.'' The president must therefore 
     be judged according to constitutional principles and the rule 
     of law, nothing else.
       There has been no suggestion that anything the independent 
     counsel is investigating involves the president's 
     constitutional duties. Unless the independent counsel has 
     substantial evidence that President Clinton has violated his 
     constitutional duties, Mr. Starr has no basis whatsoever for 
     making a report to Congress suggesting that impeachment be 
     contemplated. Any suggestion that the president could be 
     impeached for conduct occurring as a private individual or 
     because some members of Congress might dislike his character 
     or image and consider him ``unfit for office'' is clearly 
     contrary to the intent of the framers and the explicit 
     language of the Constitution.
       We must resist as vigorously and effectively as possible 
     any effort by the independent counsel to rewrite the 
     Constitution to serve a palpable political end. The ultimate 
     sacrifice made by millions of men and women to preserve the 
     integrity of the Constitution for more than 200 years 
     requires nothing less.
       There has been a tabloidization of the whole range of the 
     American press and television. In a full self-mesmerized 
     frenzy on the possibilities of titillation, the 
     constitutional requirements of due process in grand juries, 
     investigations and impeachments have been ignored, and 
     fairness has been subordinated to a persistent partisan 
     political purpose. Trial by and for the sex-focused press has 
     displaced decency, dignity, civility and respect. Unless the 
     Constitution and rule of law genuinely prevail, the country 
     will inexorably move to continual constitutional crises and 
     indeed, disunity and disintegration. Only a citizenry aware 
     of the Constitution's priorities can prevent the unraveling 
     of the nation and preserve its sovereignty. Our Constitution 
     will not survive the criminalization of the privacy of a 
     president.
       In a democratic non-totalitarian country that protects the 
     liberty, privacy, and dignity of a person, there can be no 
     crime of perjury for failing or refusing to answer question 
     about sex, questions the government has no right to ask. As a 
     34-year veterans member of Congress, John Conyers of 
     Michigan, devoted constitutionalist and Democratic leader of 
     the House Judiciary Committee, put the question before 
     Congress and the country: ``The issue is not Mr. Clinton; the 
     issue is to preserve, protect, and defend the rule of law and 
     the integrity of the Constitution. Without law, there is 
     tyranny and anarchy.''

     

                          ____________________