2
TI he CI ac I< amas P rint
Wednesday, January 27, 1999
Search for Purpose
I’ve been getting “back to ba more the strength of the Protestant
sics” lately—a phrase which de tenet, Sola Scriptura— Scripture
spite its quaint alliteration and trite Alone.
commonality holds a wealth of
In recent months, my focus has
meaning for any of us
on Planet Terra. I rec
tar
ommend it for anyone.
I’ll tell you how it
happened for me. Dis
!
satisfied with my “Con
JOEL
P. SHEMPERT
temporary English Ver
sion” paperback Bible, Copy Editor
I dug out my old, brown,
leatherbound, King James edition blurred.
to read. It’s the best choice I could Caught up
have ever made.
in the duel
The tough old leather cover feels of words,
like a Bible in my hands. The two struggling
yellow ribbons bound in for book to find the
marks make it look like a piece of best argument, the right quote, and
my upbringing.
the perfect defense, I have forgot
Opening it, I find a treasury: old, ten what I am about. I have for
worn pages printed in an archaic gotten my purpose. I have forgot
tongue with an outdated typeset ten who I am.
It’s high time I came up for air.
ting. The inner margin is packed
I am Joel Patrick Shempert. I
with footnotes and cross-refer
ences, and sermon notes scribbled am a musician, a writer, a poet, a
by my father (perhaps before I was thinker, and a servant of the Most
born), are scattered throughout. High God. I have a weekly voice
There are concordances and maps in this newspaper, and a responsi
in the back. I am holding in my bility to use it with intelligence and
wisdom.
hands a Bible.
Here is a real, tangible connec
So what is my purpose? I have
tion to my heritage, of Baptist had to reevaluate this. Is it to
churches and prayers and sermons present complex, rational argu
and the childhood of a pastor’s ments in defense of my belief? Is
son. I begin to remember a time it to expose an ordinary readership
when church was more than a to the world of philosophy and
weekend club meeting, God was metaphysics? Is it to quote St.
something sacred, and reading His Paul at least once a week?
My answer: all of them and
Word was a hushed and mysteri
none of them. Those things are
ous thing.
Reading, I start from the book good and true, but they are not my
of Jude (no problem; it’s only one mission. Love is.
It’s right there in Jude—“Keep
chapter), but soon find myself
tossed about through New Testa yourselves in the love of God,
ment and Old, courtesy of those looking for the mercy of our
wonderful margin notes and cross- Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal
life.”
references.
So, thus ends my quest. I have
My mind is racing through the
heady draught of doctrine, the stripped the layers of my belief and
struggles of angelic beings, and found love at the center. The true
prophecies given through men journey begins now. For it is not
long dead. My reason is engaged enough. I must now journey fur
to a far greater degree than it has ther up and further in, to discover
been by all the philosophers, theo if love is at the center of my life.
logians, and commentators that Then, perhaps, I will have earned
have been my intellectual diet of the right to say : I show you a more
late. I start to comprehend a little excellent way.
TI he AI
of AN
U n I cnown Cod
Editor in Chief:
’"Feature + A&E Editor:
Robert Schoenberg (x2576)
Jeremy Stallwood
The Clackamas Print aims to report the
news in an honest, unbiased, profes
sional manner. The opinions expressed
in The Clackamas Print do not
neccesarily reflect those of the student
body, college administration, its faculty,
or The Clackamas Print advertisers.
Products and services advertised in The
Clackamas Print are not neccesarily en
dorsed by anyone associated with The
Clackamas Print. The advertising rate
is $4.75 per column inch. All signed let
ters to the editor should be 300 words
or less and will be considered for publi
cation if submitted by 1 pm the Friday
prior to publication. The Clackamas
Print is a weekly publication and is dis
tributed every Wednesday except dur
ing Finals week.
Sports Editor:
John Thorhum
Business Manager:
Kristina Brooks
(x2578)
Clinton Conundrum
why should we care?
LEE EBY
Contributing Writer
Our country is partaking in a pro
cess that is both historical and mo
mentous. That process is, of course,
the impeachment and trial of the
current President.
Whether one believes the action
is politically motivated or the re
sult of criminal actions taken by a
public servant, the whole process
is one that affects a government that
theoretically serves the people. But
why should we care? In order to an
swer this it is helpful to examine
popular conceptions:
“The charges fall far short of
the standards of an im
peachable and removable
offense.”
To be convicted of most crimes
two things must be present: l)Afen5'
Rea (bad state of mind); and 2)
Actus Reus (bad act). There are, of
course, specific crimes that do not
require these two points (e.g. strict
liability laws), but the crimes the
President is accused of are not clas
sified under those laws.
In the case of the President, he is
Associate Editors:
Angie Daschel
Joel "Israel" Gunderson
Karl Katzke
Mandi Linstrom
Staff Photographers:
Copy Editor:
Joel P. Shempert
Sarah Welch
Toni McMichael
Photo Editor:
Timothy A. Bell
Advisor:
Linda Vogt
(x2310)
Secretary:
JoAnne Gale
Design Editor:
..
rtu
jx
Megan Oldenstadt
a
A ve .
O regon CiTy,
2509 •
Staff Writers:
Kara Alexis
Salena De La Cruz
James Khosravi
Janos Plesko
Maria Raymond
Angela Waddell
‘
Shelbi Wescott
O reqon 97045
CCCpRlNT@clAC'k AMAS.CC. OR. US
accused of Perjury and Obstruction
of Justice, both of which are crimi
nal acts (actus reus) and require in
tentional and knowing commission
of the crimes (mens red). Thus, on
the surface it would appear both
crimes are, if committed,
convictable offenses.
However, to remove a President
from office the crime must be “trea
son, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors.” (Article n, Sec.
4 of the U.S. Constitution) Since
Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
are neither treason or bribery, do the
crimes classify under “high crimes
and misdemeanors?” Like most of
the Constitution, “high crimes and
misdemeanors” is, and in most like
lihood intentionally, vague. Yet, if
one was to take the Constitution lit
erally, “high crimes and misdemean
ors” would mean any crime the con
gress so believed rose to the level
of an impeachable and convictable
offense.
In fact, the State of Oregon be
lieves perjury to be so destructive
to the justice system that it is classi
fied as a felony (ORS 162.065).
Thus, a charge of perjury alone
could rise to a level sufficient for
removal of a President of the United
States if congress believes it so does.
“The President can’t be re
moved for an offense that
does not arise from his official
duties.”
The Constitution does not ex
pressly state that the offense must
arise in the course of the official
duties of a President to be a
convictable and removable offense.
The Senate has actually set prece
dent for conviction and removal of
public officials for offenses that do
not arise directly from official du
ties.
For example, during the 1980s the
Senate convicted and removed three
federal judges for committing per
jury. Of the three judges, two judges
were removed because of perjury
that in no way was connected to their
official duties.4 In fact, one of the
judges, Judge Nixon, was removed
for perjury before a grand jury the
same offense of which the President
is currently accused. It must be
noted, judges are removed under the
same standards that apply to Presi
dents. In essence, the Senate has es
tablished that crimes committed by
a public official need not arise from
official duties.
“It’s a personal matter, and
a President shouldn’t be held
to a higher standard than th«
general public.”
The Office of the President is a
position that is more symbolic than
substantive; however, the President
holds the position of Chief Exeat
tive, and technically, oversees those
institutions that enforce federal laws,
And allegations of the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer breaking any
laws are grave statements and war
rant concern by the public.
In other words, if the highest law
enforcement officer does not follow
the law, why should any individual
follow the law? The question is one
of fundamental fairness, and resped
for the rule of law. In Oregon, law
enforcement officers, or any public
official for that matter, are held to
higher standard of conduct (e.g,
ORS 162.415). Should not a Presi
dent be held to the same standard?
“Why should I care?”
It may sound trite, but it’s you
country and your president. Our re
publican form of government ii
grounded on the notion of its public
servants adhering to a high standard
of conduct. If those standards are
compromised in any way, the sys
tem fails to work the way it should
In fact, James Madison, one of the
architects of the Constitution, real
izing the importance and sanctity ol
the Presidency, supported applying
impeachment to political offenses
and not merely criminal acts. It is
conceivable that Madison would
find lying to the American publics
more destructive offense, and thus,
more impeachable than perjury oi
obstruction of justice. But the fad
remains, we as Americans should be
concerned and involved in all mat
ters of governing, because it affects
every aspect of our lives.
The Print asked Lee Eby, political seiend
student and graduate of Clackamas' Crini'
rial Justice program, to write this article.