Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 7, 1999)
©rectonWCmeralb NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 E-MAIL ode@oregon. uoregon.edu ON-LINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/--ode EDITOR IN CHIEF Ryan Frank EDITOR [AUDITORS Kameron Cole Stefanie Knowlton United States President Clinton The Senate trial is scheduled to begin today, hut most are uncertain of hoiv the trial should proceed Opinion Stefan ie Knowlton Bogged down by the rhetoric coming from both Democ rats and Republicans, the situation seemed surreal until now. President Clinton is going to trial and he could be removed from office, which would be the first time in history that a president would be forced to leave office. With this solemn task in hand, the Senate is uncertain of how to pro ceed. Once the trial begins there are three possible outcomes: one, with a majority vote the Senate could call off the entire trial, two: with a two thirds vote the Senate could remove the president from office, three; with majority vote the Senate could call for a censure of the President. The first option is not likely con sidering that Republicans, assuming they will vote along party lines, oc cupy 55 seats in the Senate; therefore making a majority vote of 51 to dis miss the case next to impossible. In addition, prominent Democrats such as Tobert Byrd , the Senate’s senior Democrat, claim they could go ei ther way. The second option of removal from office is a little more complicated. A two-thirds vote will be hard to ac complish even if some of the Democ rats in the Senate are swayed into voting for it. Lastly, the much debated censure vote. Although the Senate did cen sure Andrew Jackson in 1834 for withholding documents, the right to censure a President is not granted un der the Constitution. The Constitu tion gives Congress the right to cen sure one another but nowhere does it include the right to censure a presi dent. This fact has led several people to argue the constitutionality of censure against a President. Former President Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for withholding documents from the Senate, but the censure was removed from the record some years later. Some are concerned that if vve allow censure, we would set a prece dent allotting more power to the Con gress than originally intended by the founding fathers. This claim is a serious one but un true. Everyone agrees that the Consti tution is a sacred document that con tinues to be the cornerstone of our government. But sometimes we need to change it in order to deal with cir cumstances not foreseen by those who drafted it. The amendments of the Constitution themselves speak to this need. As a country we are very young, and as a government we are even younger. This is only the second time in history that we have faced a presi dential Senate trial. We need a mid dle ground when removal from office is not warranted or attainable. Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are serious crimes that the President faces. Yet these crimes were committed in relationship to his personal life and not to his politi cal office. Therefore, I believe that they are not impeachable offenses. 1 do, however, believe that the President needs to take responsibility for his actions and be reprimanded for his crimes even if they are in re gard to his domestic life. If we had a censure that included a signed admittance of guilt and an apology from the president, that would serve as an appropriate pun ishment for the crimes committed. If the Senate proceeds in any other way it would be a miscarriage of justice and a tragedy that the American pub lic will have to deal with forever. Stefanie Knowlton is an editorial editor for the Emerald. Her view's do not neces sarily represent those of the newspaper Letters to the Editor Kangaroo court I recently witnessed the "hear ings process” afforded by Lane County’s Animal Regulation Au thority. My dog was cited as "po tentially dangerous-3” for alleged ly biting another dog. I requested a hearing. Present were the hearings official (a County employee), the Animal Control Officer, the com plainant and myself. The Officer read her report, then proceeded to act as the counsel to the complainant. Apparently, the officer has the liberty to act as pros ecutor, counsel and witness. Had I known the County would be pro viding complimentary counsel, I would have requested counsel for myself. A dog owner does not stand a chance in this biased fo rum. Dog owners have rights too! My dog was found guilty; I had 10 days to comply with various un reasonable restrictions. It is ridiculous to impose this level of punishment for a first offense. Bemie Perkins, Director of Animal Regulation was contacted and asked if I could contain my dog in her cur rent kennel. The answer was no. We called Greenhill and they offered to evaluate the dog’s behavior, if Lane County would accept that. The an swer was no. I was forced to choose between breaking the law and de stroying my dog. This "hearings process" is so radically unfair that it deserves the label “kangaroo court." These hearings need to be a level playing field for ALL, not a public oppor tunity for Lane County to embar rass itself, cause adverse public sentiment and showcase its em ployees as legal representatives. Gail Cross Junction City A question of credibility This letter is in regard to that my opic supplement in the ODE Nov. 17. Every’ article in that pack of pro paganda was blaming the drug wars for everything from pollution to racism. Blaming the drug wars for all our financial, social and environmen tal problems is ludicrous. It’s inter esting that the pro-pot people state that hemp will save our environ ment. The medicinal marijuana people say that pot will cure every thing from AIDS to cancer. Poop! Pot doesn’t cure anything, THC treats symptoms, or in the case of chemo. patients it treats symptoms of symptoms. That is THC, not pot. And by taxing legal marijuana, this is supposed to save our national debt. Beware, the Red Herring. 1 have no problem with a cancer survivor growing a plant or two to sustain some dignity. But 34 plants for one person? Come on. You see addicts are excessive, and one can become addicted to pot when it contains 18 percent or higher THC. Please listen to and question the creditability ofthe next voice you hear touting the benefits of hemp or medic inal pot. Listen to the rasp in his/her throat. Do they look creditable? And for the folks that like to com pare tlie affects of pot vs. alcohol. An swer this: If you or a loved one were going to have a serious operation which would you prefer; A surgeon who had drunk two cocktails the night before the operation, or one who had smoked a couple of joints? And if this letter pisses you off, check your motives. Is your brain one of those saturated with layers of THC? If so get some treatment or call Narcotics Anonymous: 341 6070. THC is addictive and it’s the primary ingredient in marijuana. Colin Campbell Eugene
