Sexual Harassment Allegations and Perjury

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton centered on allegations of sexual harassment, perjury, and obstruction of justice. These accusations prompted an examination of both legal and constitutional implications.

Clinton’s troubles began with Paula Jones’ civil lawsuit alleging sexual harassment while he was governor of Arkansas. This led to his deposition where he denied having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. This denial became central to the allegations of perjury.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation to include Clinton’s alleged affair with Lewinsky. Starr’s investigation revealed that Lewinsky and Clinton had indeed engaged in a sexual relationship. When Clinton testified to the grand jury, he admitted to inappropriate behavior but denied committing perjury or obstructing justice.

The impeachment process unfolded as follows:

1. September 9, 1998: Starr submitted his report to the House of Representatives
2. The House Judiciary Committee recommended four articles of impeachment
3. Two articles were approved: perjury before the grand jury and obstruction of justice
4. January 7, 1999: Senate trial began
5. February 12, 1999: Clinton acquitted on both counts

The Clinton impeachment raised questions about what kinds of presidential behavior warrant removal from office. It also led to reflection on the role of independent counsels, with critics arguing that the statute allowed for excessively broad, unaccountable investigations.

Despite his acquittal, the clash between Clinton’s personal actions and public office responsibilities continued to fuel debate about the impact of personal scandals on the highest office in the land.

Executive Powers and Separation of Powers

President Clinton’s exercise of executive power provoked significant debate, particularly in national security and foreign policy. His actions raised critical questions about constitutional principles and the system of checks and balances.

Clinton’s authorization of warrantless searches in the context of national security sparked debates about the balance between ensuring national security and preserving individual civil liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The President also faced criticism for his unilateral decisions regarding military interventions without seeking formal congressional approval. Examples include:

• Airstrikes in Bosnia
• Missile attacks in Iraq
• Threat of invasion in Haiti

These actions underscored the tension between the executive’s role as Commander-in-Chief and the legislative branch’s constitutional prerogative to approve acts of war.

Critics argued that these military interventions represented an overreach of executive power and disregarded the principle of separation of powers. The Clinton administration contended that these actions were necessary for immediate national security interests and humanitarian efforts.

Additionally, Clinton’s use of executive agreements to bypass the Senate ratification process for treaties emphasized ongoing debates on the extent to which the President can independently shape foreign policy.

These issues highlight the enduring challenge of balancing executive prerogatives with the foundational principles enshrined in the United States Constitution.

Civil Liberties Under Clinton

President Clinton’s tenure faced scrutiny regarding civil liberties, particularly in his administration’s approach to censorship, wiretapping, double prosecutions, and racial preferences. These actions raised questions about their alignment with constitutional guarantees.

The Clinton administration’s policies on media control were perceived by some as attempts to curtail free speech protected by the First Amendment. Critics, such as First Amendment specialist Floyd Abrams, accused the White House of endorsing policies that threatened free expression¹.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which facilitated wiretapping, raised concerns about Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Civil liberties advocates argued that these actions unduly expanded executive power at the cost of individual privacy.

Double prosecutions, such as the federal case against Los Angeles police officers involved in the Rodney King beating, were criticized for potentially violating the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause.

"Clinton's support for racial preferences in government hiring, contracting, and university admissions sparked debate about the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause."

The Justice Department’s lawsuit to invalidate California’s voter-backed measure against racial quotas fueled further contention.

Additionally, Clinton’s policies often clashed with the Tenth Amendment, as his efforts to federalize various issues were seen as overreaches of federal authority and inconsistent with principles of federalism.

These policies, while aimed at addressing significant issues, often appeared to conflict with constitutional protections, highlighting the ongoing challenge of aligning public policy with foundational constitutional principles.

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton serves as a significant case study in understanding the boundaries of presidential behavior and the constitutional mechanisms designed to address misconduct. It underscores the enduring importance of maintaining a balance between executive authority and accountability, reflecting the profound wisdom embedded in our Constitution.

1. Abrams F. Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment. New York, NY: Viking; 2005.