FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1516954505> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1516954505 startingPage "3" @default.
• W1516954505 abstract "Tod Lindberg is editor of Policy Review IMPEACHMENTS HAVE BEEN sufficiently rare in our national political life to make generalizing about them a risky undertaking. Granted, too, the proximity of the impeachment and acquittal of President Clinton and the still-raw feelings it engendered may have led us to a heightened concern with the subject in general, perhaps inflating out of due proportion the importance of impeachment in American history. Yet Clinton's impeachment by the House followed by the Senate's unwillingness to remove him is one of four cases, each involving impeachment and acquittal, that can fairly be called epic confrontations, both politically and constitutionally. In the details of these four cases - Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, Judge James Hawkins Peck in 1830, President Andrew Johnson in 1868, and President Clinton in 1999 - lies a tale of lasting significance broader even than the tumultuous issues that came out as these impeachments unfolded. In these four spectacular clashes, a fascinating pattern presents itself. It is the story of how resort to the Constitution's ultimate sanction became inextricably entangled with one or another law that was itself fundamentally suspect constitutionally. These laws amounted to grave extra-constitutional disturbances to a carefully wrought constitutional system based on the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It was these disturbances around which sentiment for removal gathered in the first place - only to dissipate in the end. Three conditions WHY WAS PRESIDENT CLINTON impeached? And why was he acquitted? What were the causes? It is, of course, possible to answer this question at various levels of abstraction, and accordingly to take his case as a window of one sort or another on the condition of American politics, culture, society, and the rest. There should be little doubt that Clinton's impeachment and acquittal will long stand as a major feature of the American political landscape. Aspects of the events of 1998-99 will long be adduced as evidence in theories about our times and mores. But short of this abstract inquiry, highly subject to disagreement as it is, there are a few specific aspects of the Clinton affair that most people, perhaps, would readily agree were necessary conditions for impeachment. First, the president was unwilling to restrain his own conduct at a time when the ongoing Paula Jones case put him at risk of exposure of the relationship, and he was willing to be deceitful in court about it. Obviously, if Clinton had walked away from Monica Lewinsky's overtures, none of what happened next would have happened. Not only the president's opponents, but also many of his allies, were quite clear in their view that the president recklessly and shortsightedly failed to conduct himself in a manner consistent with his office. He himself was responsible for that improper conduct. There was no deflecting responsibility to others. Had the Jones case been settled earlier, before Clinton was called to answer about other women with whom he might have been involved, there would of course have been a political cost to the president - both for settling and in the event that information about recent sexual encounters became public - but no impeachment. Similarly, had the Supreme Court ruled that the president is constitutionally immune from civil suit while he is in office, as Clinton's lawyers urged and the court unanimously rejected, or had Congress passed a statute creating such limited immunity, there might once again have been embarrassment in the event of disclosure, but there would likewise have been no impeachment. And it seems unlikely that, if Clinton had told the whole truth in the Jones case, the ensuing sex scandal would have led to his impeachment. Although the president's defenders argued otherwise, most of those who favored impeachment insisted that the sexual relationship itself was not the issue, but rather lying under oath and obstruction of justice. …" @default.
• W1516954505 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1516954505 creator A5000531620 @default.
• W1516954505 date "2000-02-01" @default.
• W1516954505 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1516954505 title "Necessary Impeachments, Necessary Acquittals" @default.
• W1516954505 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W1516954505 type Work @default.
• W1516954505 sameAs 1516954505 @default.
• W1516954505 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1516954505 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1516954505 hasAuthorship W1516954505A5000531620 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C126053111 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C2777710833 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C2778223634 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C2779572086 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C126053111 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C144024400 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C17744445 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C199539241 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C2776154427 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C2777710833 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C2778223634 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C2778272461 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C2779572086 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C83009810 @default.
• W1516954505 hasConceptScore W1516954505C94625758 @default.
• W1516954505 hasLocation W15169545051 @default.
• W1516954505 hasOpenAccess W1516954505 @default.
• W1516954505 hasPrimaryLocation W15169545051 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W1593432545 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W192644671 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W202861739 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2134717551 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2139292345 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2141267101 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2144055012 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2183760957 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2267724945 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W228598057 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2324867174 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2333852757 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2344845308 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2480427193 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W2953594967 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W308144708 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W3122594527 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W3123742093 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W3125656198 @default.
• W1516954505 hasRelatedWork W119476330 @default.
• W1516954505 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1516954505 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1516954505 magId "1516954505" @default.
• W1516954505 workType "article" @default.