WASHINGTON - When the next occupant settles into the Oval Office in January 2001, he or she may feel the power of the presidency subtly reduced by the distant events of The Year of Lewinsky.
Kenneth Starr's tireless investigation of President Bill Clinton, the President's pursuit of losing legal gambits, the
House's vote to impeach - all nibbled away at presidential power, say constitutional scholars.
The erosion began even earlier, with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on May 27, 1997, that Paula Jones could bring her sexual harassment lawsuit against a sitting President. That led to the deposition in which Clinton denied ever engaging in sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Some scholars view this weakening of the office as part of a natural pendulum swing away from powerful Presidents who have dominated the 20th century. Others lament the whittling away of power.
"It's probably too early to know what, if any, lasting effects this tawdry episode will have on the presidency," said historian Alan Brinkley of Columbia University. "But it would be naive to think that the rancour or viciousness of this episode would leave no legacy."
For instance, the Clinton White House went to court in the heat of the expanding scandal to press a series of constitutional questions that future Presidents may wish had been left alone.
Trying to block grand jury subpoenas to some of his closest advisers and bodyguards, Clinton claimed lawyer-client privilege, executive privilege and a special privilege covering Secret Service officers. He lost them all.
The courts ruled that the Secret Service privileges did not exist, that the attorney-client privilege dissolved in the face of a grand jury subpoena seeking evidence of possible criminal offences and that executive privilege could be overcome by the needs of prosecutors.
"The Clinton Administration was almost reckless in its willingness to litigate each of these issues despite the remote possibility of success," said law professor Jonathan Turley, who represented four former Attorneys-General opposing the Secret Service privilege.
Future Presidents can no longer presume that they - or the first lady - will be able to keep secret their conversations with top aides or Government lawyers.
Past Presidents benefited from the ambiguity in the law, trying to strike a bargain when Congress demanded testimony or documents, and storing away court challenges to be pulled out in moments of crisis.
"President Clinton virtually cleaned the pantry out and left little for the next occupant of the office," said Turley.
Likewise, the President fought Jones' right to sue all the way to the Supreme Court instead of negotiating a settlement.
"The fact that we've got this precedent on the books has to be disturbing to whoever is in the White House," said Buckner F. Melton jun, author of The First Impeachment, about the case of Senator William Blount, who was impeached late in the 18th century. "It raises the possibility of suits to harass a President."
Perhaps the most hotly debated issue was whether the Republican-controlled House lowered the impeachment standard, leaving future Presidents vulnerable to partisan attack, by approving articles that did not focus on misuse of the powers of the presidential office.
A bevy of historians came forward to argue that attempts to cover up a sexual affair, even if it involved perjury and obstruction of justice, did not rise to the level of an impeachable offence.
Others disagreed. And the House impeachment managers maintained that failure to oust the President, despite strong evidence he broke the law, set a poor constitutional precedent.
However, precedent may be overrated when it comes to impeachment.
"It's such a political process, it's very easy to ignore what happened in earlier impeachments," said Melton.
In one way Clinton's travails may benefit future officeholders. The Lewinsky case has increased momentum for doing away with, or at least reining in, independent counsels such as Starr.
The independent counsel law is up for renewal in June. Democrats, who traditionally favoured the Watergate-era reform, are now joining Republicans who have long said the law allows prosecutors too much unfettered power to pursue the President, his cabinet and top aides.
None of the events of the past year will permanently cripple the presidency. A President is still America's leader and agenda-setter. - AP
WASHINGTON - When the next occupant settles into the Oval Office in January 2001, he or she may feel the power of the presidency subtly reduced by the distant events of The Year of Lewinsky.
Kenneth Starr's tireless investigation of President Bill Clinton, the President's pursuit of losing legal gambits, the
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.