www.FreeRepublic.com
Topic: White Water

Making Criminals of Us All

NY TIMES
December 30, 1998 By RICHARD DOOLING

OMAHA -- Feet stomp. Fists pound. Fingers point.

But whom should we blame for our popular President's unpopular impeachment and impending Senate trial? Mr. Clinton and the Democrats blame Kenneth Starr and the Republicans, who in turn blame the President and the Democrats, who blame Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Lucianne Goldberg, Paula Jones, her lawyers or a host of others.

But the root of the scandal lies elsewhere: in the surfeit of intrusive laws that would make criminals of almost anyone the Government decides to investigate. When Kenneth Starr, a by-the-book prosecutor, wound up his presentation before the House Judiciary Committee with a paean to his calling in life as a "Man of the Law," he spoke the truth.

Were it not for the independent counsel statute and expanded interpretations of the sexual harassment laws, Mr. Starr would have had no authority to interrogate the President about his private sexual behavior.

If Mr. Starr were sent back in a time capsule to 1962, he could have done nothing about President Kennedy's sexual indiscretions: independent prosecutors and lawyers trained to imagine new sexual harassment theories had not been invented yet.

Without these laws run amok, the scandal that has gripped the nation for the last year, and the constitutional crisis it created, would be the stuff of an Orwell novel.

At what point do the evils of intrusive, well-meaning laws outweigh their benefits? When does a law's reach exceed its grasp? Answer: Now. Any male supervisor who has consensual sex with another employee in any American workplace could be sued and deposed in the way Mr. Clinton was.

Thanks to ever-expanding theories about what constitutes harassment, even private, consensual sex is fair game for questioning.

What if, instead of punishing women who decline his unwanted advances, a powerful male employer simply rewards women who do consent to have sex with him? Does that violate Title VII sexual harassment laws? Probably.

Let's question him under oath about his sexual relationships and let the jury decide.

If he lies about sex to protect his family, it's perjury.

If we are to be a nation of laws and not men, then perhaps we should pause before we attack yet another social malady or human weakness by passing yet another unenforceable law.

Otherwise, it's a matter of selective enforcement, and anybody who can't afford to hire Johnnie Cochran or David Kendall will pay the price.

Ulysses S. Grant once said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." The nation has witnessed the merciless, stringent execution of its sexual harassment laws on President Clinton. Should we remove him from office or repeal the odious laws? It should be one or the other. If we let him off the hook but keep the laws on the books, then the Greek statesman Solon was right when he said, "Laws are like spiders' webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape."

Richard Dooling is the author, most recently, of ``Brain Storm,'' a novel.

GOOD POINT!

Posted by: JEROD (allamericansarefools@freerepublic.com) *
12/30/98 05:39:13 PST
To: JEROD
What if, instead of punishing women who decline his unwanted advances, a powerful male employer simply rewards women who do consent to have sex with him? Does that violate Title VII sexual harassment laws? Probably.

Whaddya mean, what if? That is EXACTLY what the 'toon did with Monica. Why do you think he LIED about when his "affair" started? Because it started when she was an INTERN, and THEN she got a full time job. She was the ONLY intern to get such a job.

The big creep did reward a woman who did consent to have sex with him.

Case closed.
From: machman (deadliner@hotmail.com) *
12/30/98 05:45:16 PST

To: machman
BETTER POINT!
From: JEROD (allamericansarefools@freerepublic.com) *
12/30/98 05:47:13 PST
To: JEROD
Making Criminals of Us All

This is one concern from the Libertarians. If we are not criminals, our government has no power over us. This is why we get so many laws. Who can state truthfully the oath at the bottom of their IRS form when you would get different opinions from multiple agents? I stand by my idea: Two year zero based budget in Congress with the off year used to repeal ineffective laws. Will it happen? Hardly!
From: nsmart (smarty) *
12/30/98 05:50:17 PST

To: nsmart
Two year zero based budget in Congress with the off year used to repeal ineffective laws.

Hell I'll stand by your idea as well. Whenever I hear some numbskull declare that the senate won't be able to do any work because of the impeachment trial, I say thank god!! And I often have to explain that I'm not joking. Have you noticed how, in recent years the Gov (especialliy the Feds) have taken an almost adversarial stance against the citizenry . . .where are we headed indeed!!
From: mumblz () *
12/30/98 05:58:54 PST
To: JEROD
Two points:

First, it wasn't what he did with Lewinsky, which was consensual, that exposed him (no pun intended) to the sexual harassment law, it was what he did with Paula Jones.

Second, if you don't like the law, change it! But it just so happens that Clinton is the standard bearer of the party responsible for those darned inconvenient sexual harassment statutes. If Clinton murdered someone (okay, someone else) would we hear liberals everywhere complaining about those damned murder laws that everyone could be guilty of??
From: benjaminthomas (emailname) *
12/30/98 06:06:07 PST
To: mumblz

Have you noticed how, in recent years the Gov (especialliy the Feds) have taken an almost adversarial stance against the citizenry ....

What's this "ALMOST" sh*t, Paleface?

<);^)


From: BRAllen (BrianAllen@jerusalemail.com) *
12/30/98 06:09:45 PST

To: mumblz
where are we headed indeed

Okay, let's get our legislators to sponsor a bill. Won't happen! The reason is that too many are dependent on the current system and the status quo. Here's another idea: I am totally against government employees being able to unionize. The way unions work involve the free market to put a lid on earnings..., ergo, government work should be considered a temporary public service and their choice to stay or leave but not get RICH.
From: nsmart (smarty) *
12/30/98 06:21:25 PST

To: BRAllen
What's this "ALMOST" sh*t, Paleface?

Sorry, but I was trying to start the day on a somewhat diplomatic note!! <:}
From: mumblz () *
12/30/98 06:22:16 PST

www.FreeRepublic.com