undefined
undefined
Opinions on Current Issues
The Impeachment Proceedings of President William Jefferson Clinton
The citizens of the United States of America have all received an important
addendum to the apparently inadequate 4 months of "American Government"
taught in public high schools across the nation.
The divide across the country on whether or not to impeach President William
Jefferson Clinton seems to arise from a shameful misunderstanding of the
entire Congressional process. I, like many other Americans, believed for a
short time that impeachment was the equivalent of removal from office. I
was soon reminded that impeachment was only a formal accusation from the
House of Representatives which is followed by a trial in the Senate. Up
until Friday, I was still wrong in my perception of a Senate trial as I
believed that the only option in the Senate was the removal of the President
from office. However, my viewing of the House of Representatives debate this
weekend provided me with an important lesson about this process of checks and
balances that our country prides itself in. I learned that:
Congress has a significant responsibility in safeguarding the country from
presidential tyranny.
Upon any suspected misconduct by a President, it is the responsibility of
the House of Representatives to present a formal accussation of the President
known as an impeachment. This formal accusation needs only a majority
approval from the House of Representatives to be official.
Once impeachment has been enacted, it is the responsibility of the Senate to
investigate the accusations via trial in which the Senate, who then act as
judges and jurors, may call on witnesses to bring clarity to the accusations.
Once the process reaches the Senate, a number of actions may take place:
1. A majority (51) of the Senators may at any time motion for
adjournment and (indefinitely) table the trial which is the equivalent of
throwing the case out.
2. The Senate may conduct the trial in its entirety and decide not
to convict the President.
3. The Senate may conduct the trial in its entirety and convict the
President.
4. Upon conviction, the Senate must decide on punishment of the
President of which removal from office is the worst-case-scenario.
Somehow it seems as if these important details were either deleted from our
high school American Government textbook or not emphasized. Many people,
including both Democrat and Republican members of the House of Representatives,
seem to have misunderstood the details of the process.
The other details of the issue that seem to be misunderstood by America are
the exact charges that were in question. Prior to Friday, I thought the
charges were simply having sex with Monica Lewinsky and/or lying about it.
However, after the debates, it was clear that there more general charges
against the president such as "perjury" and "obstruction of justice."
I was originally opposed to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
However, after witnessing the House debates and learning the details of the
complete process, I am very pleased with the outcome in the House of
Representatives on Saturday.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that the vote reflected a
highly partisan attack. The mere fact that only Articles I and III were
passed shows that many Republicans voted on the issue according to their own
conscience and understanding of the issue rather than party loyalty. An
extremely partisan attack would have resulted in the passing of all four
Articles of Impeachment. The Democratic push for Censure was also very
necessary in bringing the idea to the table as a possibility not only for
the House of Representatives, but also for the Senate.
I think that it is also worth mentioning that 5 Democrats voted for all four
Articles, including the third which passed by a slim vote of 222 to 212. Now
if we do the math, we see that if those 5 Democrats voted against Article III
that the results would have been a 217-217 tie in which the missing Representative's
vote would have determined the pass/fail of that particular Article. Being
that Article III is viewed as the more severe of the two, this could have
been a very, very different impeachment issue before the Senate had this
Article failed. However, in an alledged environment of partisanship, these
5 "disloyal" Democrats have made the situation for the President much more
complicated.
My hopes for the future of this issue is that a trial in the senate lead to
conviction of President Clinton with punishment less than removal from office.
I beleive that the process is on the right track and that this particular
outcome would be a favorable one for everyone--the President, Congress, and
most of all, the citizens of the United States.
In order for this desired outcome to become reality, it will be imperative
that the President and Congress better nderstand one another. First of all,
the President and his advisors must terminate the use of the word "partisan"
and "attack". I think that my discussion above makes the reasons crystal
clear. Secondly, Congress must realize and respect the fact the Bill Clinton
is a well-educated and trained lawyer from on of the most respected learning
institutions in the country and world--Harvard University. They must
understand that his testimonies were misleading, which Clinton has admitted
to, but also well-calculated by a Harvard law scholar to be within the realms
of legality. There is a thin line between misleading information and false
information--a line which I believe that President William Jefferson Clinton
legally walked.
Proposition 209/Affirmative Action
PRO - Proposition 209/CON - Affirmative Action
Let’s place this issue of Affirmative Action into a concrete perspective. To do
this take into consideration the three time periods in question—the period
before the Civil Rights Act, the period following the Civil Rights Act, and the
period following Affirmative action.
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Imagine yourself on a Greyhound bus
line. The bus during this time is segregated. Whites have first priority to
seating in the front. Blacks and other non-whites have to take the left over
seats in the back. This is indeed, one of the most vivid forms of discrimination.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Now, there is no segregated seating.
The Greyhound bus line, as it does today, operates on a "first come, first serve"
basis. Now, whether white or non-white, you have the right to take a seat
anywhere on the bus. This is in itself, equal rights and equal opportunity.
After Affirmative Action - You are on the bus. You are looking for a
place to sit. Because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you have equal
opportunity to any of the seats on the bus. However, only 2 seats are left.
One is in the front, the other is in the back. The person sitting in the front
seat will not allow you to sit there because they are holding the seat for "a
friend" that has yet to arrive to the terminal. So you have to go to the back.
According to the "first come, first serve" basis established by the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, you should have had that seat. However, you have to take the seat
in the back because the person in the front is reserving the seat for someone
who has yet to arrive. Is this not, discrimination revisited?
The discrimination exemplified on the bus is only one example of the
discrimination that has been occurring in the public and private sectors of
society. People have been forced to the back or even off of the bus because of
the adopted principles of Affirmative Action. For example:
· Students are being rejected from public universities because of their race.
· Job applicants are turned away because of their race.
· Government contracts are not awarded to the lowest bidders because they are not
of the preferred race.
All of these are examples of discrimination. All of these are contradictory to
the equal rights and opportunity established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Qualified students and job applicants are being forced off of the bus because of
people reserving slots for others who have yet to apply. This is obviously in
defiance of a "first come, first serve" basis. Furthermore, better qualified
contractors are being rejected because they are not of the preferred race or
gender.
Almost 5 million citizens of California and these United States, saw that
Affirmative Action was a misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
They sought to amend their state constitution by enacting the Civil Rights
Initiative better known as Proposition 209. (03:10) If we allow ourselves to
look deeper into the issue of Proposition 209, it will be revealed that
Proposition 209 keeps all federal and state protections against discrimination
in tact. It is simply an attempt to reaffirm the statutes of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
PRO - Proposition 209/CON - Affirmative Action
"Just between us blacks."
Proposition 209, be it white-supremacy or not, serves as a very good
reminder to us Blacks that we need to become more self-sufficient. The Black
community is falling apart. Black entrepreneurs are chasing set-aside contracts
instead of setting up businesses in the Black community where they are needed
the most. Before the civil rights act, we were forced to shop among ourselves,
educate ourselves, and serve ourselves. However, as a result of Affirmative
Action, we have turned our backs on Black-owned businesses and Black schools.
Proposition 209 will force us to build our own businesses. Before
Affirmative Action programs, our well educated African Americans opened and
operated their own firms. Today, most of our well educated African Americans
dream of being employed by a Fortune 500 company. This is perceived as the
"mountain top." With Proposition 209, many of our best educated African
Americans will be forced to bring their marketing, financial, and human resource
management skills back to the businesses in the Black community.
Proposition 209 will greatly aid the rebuilding of our failing Historically
Black College and University system. Our HBCUs served as the training grounds
for many of our successful 20th Century African American leaders. After
Affirmative Action programs began to be implemented, many of our young scholars
and potential leaders fled to the large, predominately White, government
supported colleges and universities. These schools appeared to have open arms
for our students. In reality, they were only trying to fill their quotas. As a
result, they suckered many of our young scholars into attending the "better"
white, government supported institutions rather than attending the HBCUs that
had been so successful in educating African American in the past. So, while
many African Americans, under Affirmative Action, have merely attended Berkely,
Stanford, etc., African Americans have graduated from Alcorn State University,
Benedict College, and all of the other fine HBCUs that are represented in this
room, at this conference, and beyond. Furthermore, our African American
educators will be more inclined to come back and teach at HBCUs rather than
filling a quota at a public, predominately white university.
Finally, Proposition 209 will force our African American businesses in
existence to be more enticing to the African American consumer. Many of our
African American-owned business are in hot pursuit of the large government
contracts that Affirmative Action programs have made more available to them.
This pursuit of government contracts leads them to turning their backs on the
African American consumer. I have in fact heard an African American-owned
construction company complain that African Americans do not support his
business. He was content that most of his business was from government
contracts. His contentment showed a lack of interest in African American
construction opportunities such as our churches that are in dire need of
rebuilding as well. Proposition 209 will force our African American-owned
business to open their eyes to the business opportunities of African American
enterprise.
CON - Proposition 209/PRO - Affirmative Action
Is Affirmative Action reverse-discrimination? To correctly answer this question,
you must first analyze the phrase, "reverse-discrimination." The word reverse
means "acting or moving in a way or direction opposite or contrary to the
usual." This suggests that in order to have reverse discrimination, there
would first have to be in place usual discrimination. The usual
discrimination was started by white males in 1441 with the African slave trade.
This is the key to remember, because the institution of slavery is what gave
the white male initial or usual power over African Americans in America.
As the years carried on, white males who had total control of the job
market, systematically discriminated against non-white males, including women,
African Americans, and other people of color to keep them out of the job market
and out of control.
Please be reminded that what is on trial here today is the issue of
Affirmative Action. Therefore I stand strong on the fact that Affirmative
Action is reverse-discrimination.
I know you may think that I am confused with what I am supposed to standing
for. I know that I just appeared to agree with my opponents here. However, I
don’t. I want you all to understand the true meaning of reverse-discrimination.
We have already established the fact that reverse is the opposite of usual.
This use of this term alone shows that white males recognized that this new
discrimination is not the usual discrimination that they are used to
exercising. The next word in that term to focus on is "discrimination." There
are many definitions of "discrimination." The first is "the act of
discriminating, or distinguishing differences." So joining these two
terms we can establish that "reverse discrimination" is in fact "contrary to
the usual distinction of differences."
The usual distinction of differences before 1964 was based on race and
gender. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized that this distinction
of differences was not in accordance to our constitution. Therefore it sought
to outlaw the use of these differences in the education and employment sector.
Affirmative Action, which is now being accused of reverse-discrimination,
is according to our definition, "contrary to the usual distinction of
differences." Affirmative action distinguishes differences based on
opportunity. It recognizes that a period of 550 years of oppression has built
an abundance of opportunity for white males. Therefore, Affirmative Action
attempts to provide opportunities for non-whites and females. This new
discrimination or distinction of differences takes into consideration the idea
of opportunity in the hiring of job applicants, the acceptance of school
applications, and the granting of government contracts.
So, fighting discrimination with discrimination for the past 30 years has
only placed a dent in the "usual institution of discrimination." Therefore, we
need not only continue, but strengthen the Affirmative Action programs that the
many levels of governments have adopted.
For you to fully understand our claim, I want you to pay attention to the
time periods in question. The usual distinction of differences based on race
and gender have been going on for more than 550 years. (Refer to the chart.) As
you can see, the 30 years of alleged reverse discrimination have been no
comparison to this half a century of oppression.
The real issue is that white males are upset over the loss of control.
Because of numerical hiring objectives such as quotas and set-asides, white
males have lost a percentage of the control in hiring and accepting that they
have come to love and enjoy over the past 550 years.
They are upset because now they are finally having to "reap what they have
sown". They are now feeling the hurt associated with rejection for no reason
at all. Women, African Americans, and other non-whites have been dealing with
this unjustified rejection for over 500 years. Now for 30 years, they have
began to get a slight taste of their own medicine and it hurts. It hurts. It
hurts.
So, instead of accepting it, their pride has led them to conjure up this
retaliation—-Proposition 209. And so, for the sake of regaining control and
using the usual distinction of differences to keep all of their country
club members in the office, they cling firmly to this Proposition 209 saying
that it is the true interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What a
clever attempt. By keeping white males around them, they can continue to leave
the office at lunch time instead of at 5:00 so that they can go to the golf
course for a quick 9 or 18 holes. They wouldn’t want African Americans or women
in the office because they would rather stay in the office than leave work early
for a game of hoops or a session of aerobics.
CON - Proposition 209/PRO - Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action is a program put in place to grant opportunities. Many
people say that the job market is a game. Well, let’s consider this metaphor.
Imagine yourself playing a baseball game. This is a very hypothetical
situation, but imagine that everyone is equally prepared. Many of you played
little league baseball. Many times, the players whose parents had the best
relationship with the coach were able to play the most, whether they have the
skill or not. If they do not have the skill, the coach will take extra time out
after practices to make sure that that player gets better. Meanwhile there is a
player just as good on the bench—and that player is you. Why can’t you be that
player to get the special attention to ensure a progression of skills to the
level of competition necessary to win. Even worse, imagine that you are better
than that player. Why is it that you are not being afforded the opportunity to
step up to the plate and perform to the best of your abilities.
Affirmative Action, in this case would give that player whose parents are
without that relationship with the coach an equal chance of playing.
Affirmative will reserve some spots in the line up for that player to get a
chance to prove himself.
This case is the basis of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action realizes
that over 500 years of discrimination has led to a complex network of better
related employers. This network continues to use the "case of the favored
player" to break the tie or even provide an unqualified chance to a white male
when competing with the minorities and women in the job market.
The next point that I want to make is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
should have been enough. However, the abstract idea of equal opportunity and
equal rights seemed to be to complex for the white male employers to understand.
Therefore, the government had to place concrete goals and objectives in the
attempt to guarantee equal rights and opportunity. The results were quotas,
set-asides, and the like. The fault here lies on the white male employers who
had the opportunity to provide equal rights and opportunity without the use of
these concrete, numerical objectives. If they had been willing to break away
from traditional discrimination and judge applicants on the basis of merit
instead of placing their white male counterparts to the top of the application
stack, theses quotas and other set-asides would not have been necessary.
Now, with Proposition 209, they (white males) are pointing the finger at the
government for doing what they should have done to start with. They are
claiming that they will be "ensuring the rights of the 1964 Civil Rights Act"
when in truth, they are only searching to reinstate "the good ‘ole boy system."
CON - Proposition 209/PRO - Affirmative Action
With Proposition 209, white males are pointing the finger at the government for
doing what they should have done in the start. All that they had to do was
guarantee the equal opportunity and rights called for in the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Now they want to reinstate "the good ole boy system" which is certain to
turn back the hands of time.
The real heart of the matter is, if they want to eliminate affirmative
action, they should. However, it should be followed up with an even stronger
program. With 30 years of Affirmative Action, white males still possess 97% of
the high level corporate jobs. Something must be wrong if only 3% of the
corporate jobs are available to minorities and women who make up over 60% of the
population.
*This is the final rebuttal made by me in the debate finals of the National
Association for African American Honors Program (NAAAHP) conference in November
of 1997.
Email: donovingleaton@hotmail.com
