Comparing the Nixon and Clinton Impeachments

The court case of The United States v. Richard Nixon took place in 1974. Three articles were passed by the House Judiciary Committee, however Nixon resigned from office before a vote by the full House could take place. The first article brought against Nixon essentially stated that Nixon made false or misleading statements in an attempt to cover up the Watergate break in. The second article states that Nixon violated the constitutional rights of citizens and hindered the due and proper administration of justice. The third and final clause states that Nixon failed to produce certain required papers and information for the House Judiciary Committee. (http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixon.html).

In 1998, the court case of The United States v. Bill Clinton took place. The House Judiciary Committee created four articles of impeachment, however only two were approved by the full House. When the articles were brought to the Senate, the 2/3 majority required to convict Clinton was not met. The first article approved by the House stated that Clinton violated his constitutional oath by undermining the integrity of the office and that he betrayed his trust as President. The second article stated that Clinton "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice". (http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/clinton.html).

These two court cases show several distinct similarities. For one, they both essentially state that the two Presidents impeded and/or obstructed the administration of justice. Also, both Presidents were accused of lying under the oath of office and not upholding their duties as President. In the clauses of each article, the two Presidents were each accused of essentially bribing or encouraging witnesses to give a false statement. On the surface, both Presidents appear to have been charged with many similar charges. These charges, on paper, are very serious and can be considered grounds for removal of office. However, one must look at the situation each man was in when he made those decisions, and consider the consequences of his actions.

President Nixon, at the time, was having a successful tenure in office. He was looking at a very good possibility of being re-elected for a second term when the Watergate Scandal took place. When the accusations began, Nixon could have simply apologized for what happened and claimed that he did not initiate the break in. However, he decided to cover up for his men and did not cooperate with the judiciary process. When accused, Nixon tried to say that as President, he had the authority to keep certain things secret from the public and other branches of the government. When asked about the White House tapes, Nixon argues that "if (he) were to make public these tapes...the confidentiality of the Office of the President would always be suspect" (OV, p. 176). If he had played the innocent card and admitted that what took place was wrong but he himself did not initiate the break in, he would have stood a much better chance against the scrutinizing eye of the American public. Instead, Nixon turned the Watergate Scandal into a very negative image on the Presidency, the separation of powers declared in the Constitution, and even national security as a whole. (http://www.pifmagazine.com/SID/310/).

President Clinton, in my opinion, did not jeopardize national security. Essentially, he cheated on his wife. Like any celebrity, this will draw a lot of attention and media coverage. I feel that in a situation such as this, the President should be treated like an ordinary citizen of this country. The Monica Lewinsky incident was something which should never have been made into a huge public scandal. Yes, Clinton cheated on his wife with Lewinsky, however that is something which should remain personal to the Clinton household. By probing into Clinton's personal life, the President felt the need to cover up for his actions, even though he never should have been in that position to begin with. In my opinion, the only scandal which Bill Clinton should have faced any type of trial or punishment for is paying off Paula Jones. Even in this case, however, the media blew it out of proportion to the point where Clinton felt the need to exaggerate the truth or hide certain things, hence the "obstruction of justice" charges. Clinton was having a successful presidency and was very popular with the public. He was creating jobs and boosting the economy. He made some mistakes in his private life which were blown out of proportion (in my opinion), causing him to do the logical thing and try to cover up. (http://www.pifmagazine.com/SID/310/).

On paper, the Nixon and Clinton impeachment trials were very similar. They both brought forth similarly worded charges against the Presidents. However, when considering the situations in which each President provoked these charges, I feel that Nixon's reasons and consequences were more serious and detrimental to the office of the President, while Clinton was a victim of the media and some attention hungry females.

Sources:

Articles of Impeachment Against President Clinton, 1998. LandmarkCases.org. . 31 Jan. 2010.

Articles of Impeachment Against President Nixon, 1974. LandmarkCases.org. . 31 Jan. 2010.

Worsham, Jeremy. Dead Presidents: The Difference Between Nixon and Clinton. PifMagazine.com. 31 Jan. 2010. .

Nixon, Richard. Executive Privilege Protects a President's Private Communications. Opposing Viewpoints. (p. 174).