OCR Text |
Show All The Salt Lake Tribune OPINION Tuesday, February 9, 1999 Senators Will Be Betraying God and Country If They Acquit Clinton TheU.S. Senate this week, despite the acknowledgment by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., that what President Clinton did does indeedrise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,will likely ignore the law and the Constitution and vote to acquit this shameless and guilty CAL THOMAS man. In doing so, manysenators will place the economy,theopinion polls and political partisanship above the laws by which every othercitizen is judged. Two weeks ago, Byrd offered a motion asking his colleagues to dismiss the case against the president. But on ABC's “This Week” last Sunday, Byrd said, “there is no doubt in my mind” that the charges match the constitutional requirement for a finding of guilt. In an example of hair-splitting that rivals President Clinton’s, Byrd parsedthe law. Hesuggested that because the Constitution requires the immediate removal LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE diminished and our institutions demeaned. Just how far our highest office has beentarnished by Bill Clinton was apparent in Monica Lewinsky’s videotaped deposition. Speaking about the president to Vernon Jordan, Lewinsky from office of a convicted president, he said, “I saw him more as a man than as president, and I treated him accordingly” Clinton's disgusting behavior gave her same program: ‘Each senator has his own standard.” That's precisely the no reasonto see him any other way. Having shed his personal dignity, he also shredded the dignity of the White House. Hetook the office noblyfilled by problem. When everyone does whatis right in his or her own eyes, the law is Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln and turnedit into a room at the Playboy man- might not vote to convict because he thinks Clinton shouldstay. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said on the sion. Having broken the moral law, he ton. Graham implored senators to “get to preserve, protect and defend. Instead of faithfully executing his responsibilities, he merely executed them. Byrd seemed to suggest thatit is possible for a president to commit a crime, be found guilty, yet escape the consequences of his criminal behavior. This what kind of person wehave herein the takes jury nullification to a new level, beyond the fiasco of the O.J. Simpson trial. senators should consider the definition of two other words muchheard in this then went on to break laws he swore to The president, in the words of House Manager Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., “wove a web of perjury and obstruction of justice.” Dodd said history will be Clinton's ultimate judge. Good luck on thatif those hundredsof historians who signed an ad opposing Clinton’s impeachmentarethe oneswriting it. Rogan correctly observed that “the failure to impose meaningful consequences for bad choices brings about more bad choices.”” the truth. For God's sake, figure out White House.” We know, but we don’t care in any way significant enough to hold him accountable beyond mere words Since muchofthis has been aboutdefi- nitions like “is” and “alone,” perhaps debate. Oneis ‘salacious’: “arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination; lecherous.” Monica Lewinskysaid she didn't like this word. After all, “it was my 1elationship,” she said. Theother wordis “scandal”: “‘discredit conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith. . in another; loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparentviolation of morality or propriety; a circumstanceor action that of. fends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associat- House ManagerRep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., delivered an impassioned sum- ed with it.” mation last weekend.Hesaid, “The rule of law — whatdoes it mean? It means ready judgedguilty by oneofits respect- that process and procedure win out over politics and personality.” Not with Clin- Bill Clinton If the Senate acquits this president, aled members, Robert Byrd, it will have brought morescandalon itself than Clinton has brought on the White House. The Senatewill have also failed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution “so help me God.” This is Bill Clinton's legacy. God help us, indeed. Don’t Expect Cities’ Anti-Gun Lawsuits to Solve the Problem of Violence in Society WASHINGTON — “Protect me from what I want,” a poet once wrote. That line might well be applied to thecities that havefiled an wave CLARENCE PAGE lowed in Novemberwith a suit based on A few: years ago the notion of suing anotherlegal theory that treats gun manufacturers and suburban gun shopslike companies that dump toxic wastes in populatedareas. It charges that “negli- gun makersforthe evil deeds of gun users would havebeen routinely dismissed as outlandish, unthinkable or, as some gent distribution” has flooded the sub- gun manufacturers charge, a shameless shakedown. But that was before the tobacco wars. When states and the families of cancer urbs with gunsthat Chicagoans buy, circumventing the city’s ban on gun sales. The defendants contend,as tebacco comCHICAGO TRIBUNE from skateboard manufacturers for the injuries sustained by daredevil kids? tories against the manufacturers and ¢is- Wheredo we draw theline? tributors of something that many of us want, guns. The troubling question is this: How far can or should oursociety and ourcourts go in protecting people from what they want? Should the government go after the makers of cheeseburgers, for example, for encouraging clogged arteries and New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial has an answerto that question. Last October, his city becamethe firstto file a productliability suit against handgun manufacturers. Similarto suits that have charged automakers or toy manufacturers with selling a product they knew could be madesafer, it contends the gun makers could have provided safety devices that would preventchildren and other unau- heart attacks? Should it collect damages unreliable. Chicago's Mayor RichardM. Daleyfol- of lawsuits against gun manufacturers. victims began to win huge settlements against tobacco companies, thetide obviously had turned. Now a growing number of big-city mayors and the families of gunvictims hopeto ride thattide to vic- thorized users from firing the weapons. Gun makers argue that the devices are paniesdid, that they are only following the law in operating a lawful business. Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade, Fla., followed with suits of their own, an- nounced in Novemberduring a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, where numerous other mayorssaid thatsimilar suits werein the works. In New York City, the families of seven victims of gun violence have filed a private suit against gun makers similar to the “negligent distribution” theory of the Chicago suit. It charges that gun manufacturers oversupply the market in states with lax laws, particularly in the South. The surplus endsupin states with tighter gun laws, particularly New York, wherepolice say 87 percent of the guns used in crimes come from out of the state. But how obliged is a manufacturerto protect not only its own consumers but the generalsociety from a productit has put on the market? The answer has to come from society As Big Tobacco discovered, socialattitudes change. Just as the courts turned against cigarette makers, they also may turn against gun makers andsellers, particularly in urban areas. Civil suits cannot removeallrisk from life, nor should they try. Judges and juries should distinguish between products that reasonably can be expected to make you sick and die and those that become dangerous only through misuse. A little fatty food may be OK. A lotis a no-no. Distinctions also must be made be- tween businesspractices that are reasonably safe and those that should be made safer. Companies should be required to disclose risks involved with their products and the availability of safety fea- tures that can minimize risks. Tobacco companies, for example, were unbeatable in court until new evidence emerged of questionable business practices, such as the manipulation of nicotine content. Finally, lawsuits should only be considered by the courts whenless drastic reform efforts fail. Sometimesthe oppo- sition borderson the fanatical. I have no quarrel, for example, with the National Rifle Association’s call for strong prose- cution of those who use guns to commit crimes. But the NRA and gun makers almost ask for trouble when they oppose such sensible measures as the limiting of gun sales to only one per month. Virginia, South Carolina and Maryland have passed cne-gun-per-month laws. More should follow. Twelve gun purchases per year ought to be enough for any hobbyist, especially whenit helps curb the oversupply that feeds illegal pipelines to other states. Cities cannot sue their gun troubles away. But, if pressure from the courts can help curb the gun flood into highcrime areas, it could move us intheright direction. That's something everyone should want. Three oul 9 three people pre er Ving 50-15% on\ Noplstpoy apparel. NEW ARRIVALS OF APPAREL AND SHOES FROM THE RECENTLY CLOSED OGDEN NORDSTROM 50-60% off original Nordstrom prices on men’s apparel. 60-75% off original Nordstrom prices on women’s apparel. 50-60% off original Nordstrom prices on men’s and women’s shoes. Hurry in for best selection, All items priced as marked; no additional markdowns will be taken at register STARTS TODAY AT 8:00 A.M. NORDSTROM RACK IT’S NOT JUST DISCOUNT, IT’S NORDSTROM. Sugarhouse Center Rack, |