|
Responsibility #9
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
In Responsibility #8 reforms were proposed for the nomination and confirmation process for Judges and Justices. Similarly, but different, there are problems with the President's nomination and the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities (under Article II Section 2 of the Constitution), with respect to other officials. Here too, it appears that the President often neglects the best qualified in favor of other reasons for selection. Here too, frequently the confirmation process degrades into political party rivalry, special interest advocacy, and reelection speeches. However, in contrast to judicial nominations and confirmations, political considerations are not in conflict with the Constitution.
The President should have the latitude of balancing best qualified against compatibility with his administration and policies. The Senate properly may probe the qualifications (professional and ethical), and the compatibility with the national good. But the confirmation hearing circuses that have so often been witnessed, particularly since the advent of televised proceedings, must be precluded. Again it would appear that court-room-like discipline can only be assured by having a Supreme Court Justice preside.
There are further reasons to harness the political behavior in the confirmation hearings. The Lords of the Senate in the service of their Nobles (political parties, lobbies, special interest groups) have no mercy as they question the nominee and witnesses. They will harass, discredit, and otherwise maltreat to make their points (whether these be legitimate to the process or whether they are for reelection purposes). The Chairperson generally sits impotent, striving to abide by bipartisan committee agreements, not withstanding the damage to the nominee or witness.
Which brings us to Congressional hearings in general. It is long past time, that we should realize, that our country cannot abide the miscarriage of justice, perpetrated in many politically sensitive Congressional hearings.
One would think that the Congress would have learned its lesson from the McCarthy anti-communism hearings of the 1950s. Not so! Although perhaps not so blatant, many (particularly televised) hearings are still held with a lack of discipline, with an absence of consideration for the rights and reputations of witnesses, and with committee members putting politics first. Worst still, hearings have preempted the criminal prosecution of participants in the matters under investigation, through immunities granted by the committees to secure their testimonies.
What did Congress achieve (other than television spectaculars, or should the word be spectacles) by the Irangate hearings? Didn't nearly everyone from the President down through the Marine Lieutenant Colonel get off scot free? Can our country afford the message to our elected and appointed officials (and, indeed, our citizens) that misconduct under the Constitution can go unpunished? Can we afford to have such perpetrators continue to be hailed as heroes in some quarters, and to make megabucks in public appearances and book publications?
No way! When a Congressional hearing is expected to be particularly controversial, when it is likely to entail notoriety, when it involves questions of checks and balances among the three branches, it must be conducted as though it were a judicial trial. Hence it should be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice.
The Justice can ensure decorum. He can protect the rights of the witnesses. Where they may conflict, he can balance the objectives of Congress, with the carriage of justice in possible related judicial trials. He can expeditiously weigh the questions of Presidential or Congressional privileges of withholding documents or testimonies. The Justice can ensure that the hearings remain free of unnecessary interparty rivalry, political jockeying between the Congress and the Administration, and reelection speeches.
Now let us consider two related matters, impeachments and pardons. Our Country appears to be smug that we have had but one impeachment of a President, and that that one led to a finding of not guilty. Would we not have more assurance of proper performance under the Constitution and other laws of the land by the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and all civil officers; if we had exercised Article I Sections 2 and 3 and Article II Section 4 of the Constitution?
If the Watergate hearings had been conducted as an impeachment followed by a Senate trial (not withstanding the prior resignation of the President), would the message have been so clear that Irangate would not have occurred? Would our Presidents chance military offensive operations, that may have domestic politics as its reason, without a war declaration by Congress within the wording and intent of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution; if it had been demonstrated that there are teeth in the impeachment provisions?
The Watergate scandal demonstrated another instance in which the intent of a provision of the Constitution may be circumvented. The President has the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" (Article II Section 2). The succeeding President (of the same political party) pardoned the President who had abused his office. Had the impeachment process not been aborted, the succeeding President could not have done so. Had the pardon not been granted, it is unlikely that Irangate and other questionable activities by our Presidents and other government officials would have occurred.
Our leaders are reluctant to exercise their written or implied responsibilities unless the time is propitious. The country is in too much of an upheaval to impeach or to not pardon the President! We cannot attack the deficit nor stop the burgeoning national debt until the economy is more secure! We cannot resolve the divisive abortion question until the right case is bounced up to the Supreme Court! Wake up America; the Constitution, use it or lose it! The country must take its medicine when due, otherwise the illness and consequences will be more dire.
Publius IV
|