PAGE 2 THE GRENNELL SCARLET AND BLACK MAY 3, 1974 "m““lllllllIllllI“llllll|IllllIll|IlllI||||Ill|I[II|Ill||Ill|Ill|IllIIll|IlllIlllIllllll|Ill|IIIIIll||IllIlllllllIIll|ll|Illl|Ill||ll||Illllll|llll|ll||ll|Ill||III|Ill||ll||NlIHIIllllI]lIlllIll||llllllllIlllllllll||ll|Ill|||||Ill|Ill|Ilil|Illllllllllllllllllllllllll

WALL: ‘WE CANNOT ESCAPE HISTORY”

W»

PM {Mind

lllllllllllll||l||Ill|I||lIllIlllllllllllll|Ill|Ill|Ill|HIIllllIIIIHllll|IlllIlllIll|III|llll|Ill|IIIIlllllllllllllllIltllllllllllllllllll
IOWA IMPEACHMENT FORUM

will

“I do want to give credit to an imaginative,
constructive and energetic group of Grinnell students
who planned and organized this symposium. To open
free inquiry into an issue as momentous to the present
and future of this democracy is public education at its
best and liberal arts at its best....What we are
engaged in at this moment in our history is a process
of judgment. This process can take many forms, but it
cannot be stopped. It is a process ofjudgment of not
only one man, undone office, the most powerful single
executive office in the world, but it is also a process in
judging and evaluating the efﬁcacy of democracy...
The judgment is taking many forms, which is quite
proper, it seems to me, in an issue as momentous as
this. Thejudgrnent is taking the form ofjudgment and
evaluation in the free press. Jefferson once
commented that given the choice between a free
government and a free press, he would take free
press. But it is afoolish choice, because we cannot
have one without the other.

”Judgment is taking place from the people, in the
form of letters to editors and in polls, both scientific
and informal This process of judgment, and this is
a very meaningful process to the jury that will have to
consider the issue is taking place in the votes of the
people. Very deﬁnite expressions have taken place in
the special Congressional elections...this spring. The
process of judgment has been taken by Richard Nixon
himself, when early in the Watergate inquiry he made
a remark whose truth cannot be in anyway disputed
when he said that he ultimately had the responsibility

for this situation.

"It is taking place in the constitutional process, of
which the two gentlemen on my left must play such a
very major role. The process of impeachment, to find
if there are substantative charges against the
President, and if so, then the trial in the Senate. This
constitutional process cannot be evaded or avoided, it
is essential to the continuing functioning of our
Constitution. And there is a final judgment, which
may in the long run be the most important judgment
ofall because it reaches beyond the present moment to
the future, and that is the historical judgment. “The
present incumbent in the White House has become
fund in recent weeks of quoting Mr. Lincoln. Misery
not only seeks company, it seeks great company,
however incongruous that companionship may be. I
have been waiting in vain, however, for one quote by
Mr. Nixon, and it is perhaps one of Lincoln’s most
famous quotations: ‘Fellow citizens, we cannot escape
history. We of this congress, and this administration,
will be remembered in spite of ourselves. . .No personal
significance or insignificance can spare one or another
of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light
us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation.
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best
hope of the earth.’ It is in that spirit of awesome
responsibility that we are gathered here this
afternoon."

Grinnell College
Herrick Chapel
April 27, 1974

llll|lllllll|lllllll|llllllllllllllllllllllllllll|llllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllll|lllllll||llllllll|llllllllllll|lllllllNllllllllllllll|llllllllllllIll||l||llllllll|IIIIIII|lllllll|lllllIll||l||Illllll||lllllll|llllill|IIIJlllllllllllllﬂlllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

‘P’an'el Ponders Constitutional Complexities

by Scott Weil '

The impeachment forum began at
10:05 am. Saturday morning, when
Senior Fred Horecky moderated the
first panel, which dealtwith the Con-
stitutional and legal aspects ofimp:
eachment. Horecky emphasized the
importance of this discussion with
the following opening remarks: “In
the final analysis, the viability of a
Presidential impeachment may de-
pend upon the House of Representa-
tives’ interpretation of the Constitu-
tional meaning of impeachment; the
circumstances under which impea-
chment is legally prescribed b
the Constitution."

Ready to grapple with the legal and
Constitutional prescriptions were
David Fishlow, National Field Di-
rector of the American Civil Lib-
erties Union; Herbert Selby, Gen-
eral Counsel to the Iowa Republi-
can Party State Committee, Lauren
Soth, editorial page editor of the
Des Moines Register. Conspicuous
by their absence was any semblance
of Constitutional experts.

Difficulties

The steering committee sought to
enlist the participation of such ex-
perts from Iowa City and other law
schools, apparently in vain. What we
were presented with was a law-
yer’s politico, a politician—lawyer,
and a newspape rman. Nevertheless,
the great discrepancy of opinions
did provide the South Lounge crowd
with an interesting, if not totally
authoritative picture of the meaning
of impeachment.

David Fishlow proudly related the
essence of the ACLU resolution cal-
ling lor the impeachment ofRichard
M. Nixon, dated Sept. 30, 1973.
He emphasized the significance of
the date as proof that the ACLU
is not concerned solely with the
President’s role in the Watergate
affair. Fishlow announced, “The E0-
ard of the ACLU, afterseveral mon-

-ths of very serious debate, called
for Nixon’s impeachment because,
in essence they felt that either he
does not understand, or Choses to
ignore, if he does understand, the
Constitution of the United Slams.”

Ten specific charges were offered
as grounds for impeachment. Most
of these charges dealt, predictably
enough, with the invasion of civil
liberties.

First Count

The first count charges, “He and
his closest aides have organized

, and conducted a deliberate assault

. on civil liberties by authorizing
massive invasion of First Amend-
ment rights." Specifically this count
refers to Nixon’s initial approval in
1970 of the domestic intelligence
plan proposed by White House aide,
Tom Huston, which would have gr-
anted federal agents the powersto
wire-tap without a warrant, to open
and track private mail, and to per-
mit military spying on civilians.,

, National Security
Nixon described the "Huston Plan”

as “the best way to protect the
national security of the United
States.” Fishlow warned us that this
would not be the last we would hear
of the term “national security”
Count two charges that the Pres—
ident “employedgove rnment powe rs
to harrass and punish critics of his
administration,” These charges
stem from sworn testimony of the
use of warrantless wiretaps by ms
and FE! agents in prosecuting the
President’s “enemies."
Wiretaps

Nixon claimed that warrantless
wiretaps were legal at the time of
their use. However, Fishlow refers
to a unanimous Supreme Court de-
cision, when he asserted that war-
rantless wiretaps never have been,
and hopefully never will be, legal
under the guarantees of the Bill of

Questions on
the

Constitution
E

Rights.

Count three cites the President’s
“interference with functioning of
the free press through the use of
wiretaps and FBI threats of pro-
secution." Fislowspecifiedthat col-
umnist Joseph Kraft and correspon-
dent Daniel Schorr had been har»
assed. .

Count four was simply “he has
secretly recorded conversations in
his own office without notifying the
participants.”

Cynicism

Fishlow introduced count five with
“a cloud of cynicism." ”The Pre-
sident and his chief aides interfer-
ed with the rights of peaceable as-
sembly and protest." This charge
refers to the May 1, 1971 anti-war
demonstration in Washington, 0.0,,
where 13,000 American citizens, pe-
titioning their government for red-
ress of an immoral foreign policy,
were arrested and thrown in jail,
without warrants, charges, or ar»
raignments.

Upsurped Powers

Count six~"'l‘he President has n-
surped the war-making powers of
Congress." Cambodia was a neu-
tral nation. Nixon unilaterally aut-
horized the bombing of that nation.
When speaking to a Vietnam Ve -
erans group, Nixon was asked why
he never told Congress or the pub-
lic about the bombing, he admitted
that he concealed this action be-
cause “if the American people ever
found out about the bombing of Cam-
bodia, it would have had to stop."
Obviously, Nixon sought the shelter
of national security.

Fishlow stressed that the ACLU
had acquired all its information fr-
om sworn public testimony in Sen~
ate hearings and reading the news-

papers. He also suggested that the
existence of a “pattern of violat-
ions of the Constitutional guaran-

, tees of the United States by a whole

string of people who report....to
Richard Nixon." He emphasizedthat
the pattern had gone on long before
Watergate.

The President’s interpretation of
impeachment is that only an indic-
table felony constitutes grounds for
impeachmeh --“the gospel accord-
ing to St. Clair.” But, Fishlowturn-
ed back to the impeachment of An-
drew Johnson for violation of the
"Tenture of Office Act." Johnson
maintained that the act was uncon-
stitutional and the Supreme Court
later ruled that indeed, the Act
was unconstitutional Johnson’s de-
fense and rationale for violating the
law was this' he President must be
able to control the excesses of his
subordinates in order to function
properly under the Constitution.

Selby

Herbert Selby, General Counsel
to the lowa Republican State Par-
ty, analyzed the present situation
in Washington to be a power strug-
gle. “I don’t have'any real aver-
sion to a power struggle unless it
gets out of hand. But when I hear
Rodino commenting...to the effect
that if the President does not obey
the subpeona...that f 'ure to obey
a Congressional or r might in it-
self constitute a ground for impe-
achment. if that isn’t a rather raw
and open expression of the desire to

, have Congressional or Parliamen-

tary supremacy, I've never heard
one."

Selby suggested that there was
an obvious remedy for Rodino’s co-
mmittee if the President failed to
answer the subpeona - the rule of
law. The House committee could go
to the courts to test Rodino's the-
ory that Congress has the proper
authority, under the law, to require
that the President comply with the
Congressional subpeona.

Selby contended that those Congr-
essmen who sought to impeach the
President for maladministration,
i.e., responsibility for the acts of
his subordinates, those Congress-
men were standing on shakygrounds
in the historical perspective of the
Constitutional Convention.

Narrow Definition

Selby held that the Framers wrote
the Constitutional definition of im~
peachment, "so as to protect the
Presidency,” that the narrow def-
inition of high crimes and misde-
meanors insured that the branch
of government “could not, through
popular sentiment if you please,
overwhelm the other branch.” The
framers protected the public against
the possibility of the President "get—
ting into office and doing a rotten
job, by limiting the term of office
to four years specifically."

He admitted that this narrow de-
finition of impeachment conflicts
with the interpretation which Con-

gressman Gerald Ford put forth,
in April 1970, when he introduced
a motion to impeach Justice Wil-
liam 0. Douglas.
Strict Adherents

”What we need to be concerned
with is whether we are going to be
strict adherents.t0 the Constitu-
tion as we proceed inthis process."
If acts of treason, bribery, or ot-
her high crimes and misdemeanors
have been committed “by the Pre-
sident, himself, and the House votes
to impeach him and the Senate con-
victs him on these grounds,” Selby
would be satisfied, But to vote for
impeachment “because that is what
will get me elected two years from
now, or because the folksback homo.
are for it," then We will have chan-
ged our system of government and
will have disregarded the Constitu-
tion.

Soth

Lauren Soth, provided the soundest
constitutional and historicalpersp-
ectives for impeachment. He sug-
gested that the Framers of the Con~
stitution were more concerned with
Executive tyranny than that of the
legislative branch. Soth agreed with
constitutional scholars who have
held that high crimes and misde—
meanors refers to the abuse of
Executive power, to the use of po—
wers which have not been delegated
to the President by the Constitu-
tion. High crimes and misdemean-
ors ”actually means high crimes
and high misdemeanors, and its
historical context is found in 18th
century England. where it wa

a crime against the people commit-
ted by the people in charge of the
government.” He also cited Alex—
ander Hamilton’s interpretation of
impeachable offenses, found in the
Federalist Papers, which included
responsibility for the acts of his
immediate sub-ordinates.

Soth then spent some time delv-
ing into the current political site
nation which has brought about the
House Judiciary Committee’s pro-
ceedingsr “The decline of support
for the President is mostly due to
his own handling of the Watergate
affair and the charges against peo-
ple in his administration." Soth
felt that the delaying and resisting
tactics which the President .has
employed have caused the clam-
our for his impeachment.

Need Full Facts

Resignation by the President would
not satisfy Soth. He fears that the
'fuLl facts surrounding the various
political and criminal acts linked
with the Administration would he»
ver come out. “Onlyunderimpeach»
ment would the American people be
able to judge the innocence or guilt
of the President."

Soth concluded that the political
realities dictated that Congress wo-
uld refuse to interpret anything
short of a criminal offense as gr-
ounds for impeachment. “The cen-
,tral question is going to be - Did
the President and the people clos~
est to him, obstruct justice.,..and
nobody is going to deny that obs-
truction of justice is an impeach-
able offense."

3mm and aim photo to Doug liaise

Rep. Edward Mezvinsky (Dem-lowa) energetically explains the diffi
culties surrounding the impeachment issue during an interview session

with campus media representatives.

Q

 

