Professors Sign Statement Opposing Impeachment

Professors Sign Statement Opposing Impeachment
<br

BY DAVID KAPLAN
Rice News Staff
Nov. 12, 1998

Recently, more than 400 American historians united to express their opposition to the congressional drive to impeach President Clinton.

Three Rice professors are among the group. They are Jane Dailey, assistant professor of history; Harold Hyman, professor emeritus of history; and Michael Willrich, assistant professor of history.

A group statement, titled “Historians in defense of the Constitution,” appeared in a full-page advertisement in the Oct. 30 edition of the New York Times. It read, in part: “The theory of impeachment underlying these [congressional] efforts is unprecedented in our history. … If carried forward, they will leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished, at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress. … We face a choice between preserving or undermining our Constitution.”

The group is led by historians Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., City University of New York; Sean Wilentz, Princeton University; and C. Vann Woodward, Yale University.

Rice News asked the three Rice historians to reflect on the collective statement and the considerable attention it received. The professors were queried individually by staff writer David Kaplan. Their responses have been edited to meet space constraints. These conversations took place before the mid-term elections and before Congressman Henry Hyde announced his decision to streamline the impeachment hearings.

Rice News (RN): Why did you sign the statement?

Dailey: I felt that it was time for American historians, who are the people best able to put current events into context, to speak up. Public discourse on this important topic should not be confined solely to the opinions of politicians and media figures.

This attempt to remove a democratically elected sitting president for a breach of trust that in no way lives up to the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” represents an attempt to thwart the popular will. This is a far more grievous assault on our democratic system than anything Bill Clinton has done.

Hyman: I signed both as a citizen and a specialist in legal and constitutional history who has written three books that focus on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. His impeachable actions included his failure to enforce the legal equality between the races. He intentionally tried to destabilize civilian control of the military and prevent the constitutional process from working.

In the case of Clinton, the only thing in the world he hasn’t been accused of doing is blocking the operations of government. Even his alleged perjurious statements have not blocked the operations of government.

Willrich: I agree totally with the statement’s central contention, that this impeachment debacle poses a serious threat to our constitutional system.

It’s turning the censurable conduct detailed in the Starr Report into an excuse for a no-holds-barred investigation of a sitting president. Members of Congress want to use the Starr Report to stage an open-ended inquiry into charges that Ken Starr’s office itself could not deliver on. It’s already tied up the American policy-making process and will keep the president from doing important work during his remaining two years in office.

RN: The historians’ statement has received praise and also some criticism in the media. Washington Post columnist David Broder maintained that the historians have given a misleading impression that Congress is considering impeachment only because of Clinton’s sexual misconduct when, in fact, the Judiciary Committee is also considering such charges as perjury and obstruction of justice. What is your response?

Dailey: The historians haven’t missed the boat. We realize perfectly well that the issue before Congress is that of perjury, not sex, but we don’t think that perjury in this instance constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor.

Hyman: As for obstruction of justice, it is not clear in Clinton’s situation at all. Mr. Starr has not brought forth evidence that points to obstruction of justice.

RN: Another pundit, New York Times columnist William Safire, claimed that the historians’ statement is a partisan act in support of Bill Clinton. By signing the document, were you and the other historians being “political?”

Dailey: The ad that I signed is nonpartisan. But the impeachment crisis itself is certainly about politics. While I, like the other signatories, do not condone the behavior of President Clinton, I think the most important issue at the moment is protecting the Constitution.

Willrich: As an American citizen who believes in positive government actions for social justice, I have been discouraged by Bill Clinton’s presidency and his capitulation to the lowest common denominator in contemporary politics. I also think his sexual relations in the White House were entirely inappropriate and his lying to the American public was an act of cowardice. But, as a legal and constitutional historian, I see the impeachment process as something larger than Bill Clinton. It threatens one of the central tenets of our constitutional system, which is the separation of powers.

Hyman: Our statement was provoked by the use of a constitutional process for political purposes. However, I did view it as political in the sense that I knew the statement would appear before Election Day, and I did want American voters to send a message about the impeachment process to both the Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

The historians who signed that letter possess very varied social, political, economic views on many subjects–abortion, school vouchers, saluting the flag, you name it. This is not a uniform group. It is remarkable that these scholars, many of whom have studied constitutional and legal history for many decades, would have come to the same conclusion, and neither Mr. Broder nor Mr. Safire speak to that remarkable feat.

The list of historians includes some very distinguished scholars who are not accustomed to rushing into print. There is a noteworthy consensus among us that impeachment requires very high crimes indeed.