4
Wednesday. April 17, 1974
University Daily Kansan
Profs Discuss Impeachment, Presidency
BY STEVEN LEWIS
Kennan Staff Reporter
While the Watergate attorneys rehearsed their lines for their imminent decisive performance, several University of Kansas professors who have kept scholarly watch over the unfolding drama gave their views the fate of Richard Nikon and the presidency.
"It seems unlikely to me that the House will impeach or the Senate convict unless it is shown the President has committed a crime." The senate's opposition to associate professor of constitutional law,
Grant said, however, that he thought an impeachable offense was much broader than what President Nixon was contending it was. Grant said an impeachable offense included any actions detrimental to the country, such as obstruction of justice, exceptional negligence in office and failure to properly supervise subordinates.
"MADISON SAID specifically at the time the Constitution was being drafted that an impeachable offense would include firing an adviser who was doing a good "job." Grant
said, "In that sense, the Cox firing could be an impeachable offense."
Grant said, however, that Nixon was most vulnerable to vulnerability on charges of obstruction of justice, income tax evasion and assault. He also vowed to vice presidential papers was backdated.
Grant said the notion of executive privilege, which is never mentioned in the Constitution, couldn't apply to an imme-achment inquiry.
"I THINK THAT if the House indeed wanted to back a U-Haul trailer up to the White House, they could do so. If the President refused to turn over the information, they can damn well impel him for that alone." Grant said.
Grant said he thought it inappropriate for Congress to grant Nixon immunity from charges.
Asked whether he thought Halderman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell were protecting the President in anticipation that Nixon would pardon them if they are convicted, Grant said, "I don't think he would consider doing it; it would destroy him in history.
the presidency would be eternally damaged by the impachment investigation. He said Nixon was attempting to raise "the fear of God in us" to protect himself.
John G. Clark, professor of history, said he thought Nixon忍不了 be impeached, even if he weren't convicted, to demonstrate that a President wasn't beyond the
Congress might impeach him the next day even though his term would be about to end.
Clark and he wouldn't favor an attempt by Congress to weaken the office of the governor.
Special Focus:
Impeachment
law. Clark said Sen. James Buckley's
invoice to Nixon that he resign was wrong
IT MUST be proven." Clark said, "whether he did or didn't break the law."
At the very best. Clark said, the Presum-
us has here brief, ignorant, and irresponsible.
Clark discounted Nixon's statements that
"WHEN A PRESIDENT I respect comes in, I want to see him have the power to do something. There is no way our system can afford it." The president. Congress is incapable of leading.
Clark said that Nixon hadn't exerted any leadership the six years he has been in.
"All he has done is try to dismantle programs of Kennedy and Johnson. He has no ideas of his own and none of his advisers do either." Clark said.
Clark said Nikon's removal from office wouldn't adversely affect international research.
“IF IT IS to the advantage of foreign powers to cooperate with us, they will, no matter who is in the White House,” Clark said. “For all he has done to improve United States' relations with the Soviet Union and China, he hasn't made an attempt to pull down the USSR and instead statesmen. The real threat is a Soviet-Chinese war. I think Kissinger sees this.”
Earl Nehring, professor of political science, said Nixon shouldn't resign before impeachment because it might set a case for retaliation. He added that under intense political pressure to resign.
Nehring said the Soviets were in a more favorable bargaining position with the President because of his political problems. Nehring, who had been in Nehring said, and the Soviets know it.
NEHRING SAID THE impetus for campaign reform might be more if Nixon was allowed to remain in office. However, because of the problems with the peacefully and to resienl before conviction.
Raymond Davis, assistant professor of political science, predicted that Nixon would be impeached before July 1 because congressmen must then begin campaigning for reelection. If the President is impeached, Davis said he will resis
"WHETHER NIXON is impeached is really the icing on the cake," Davis said. "His powers are gone. Anyone can preside over it." He says there are instances in imaginative ways another matter.
Davis said he didn't favor proposals that would limit a president to one term in office. He said that although he favored a White House subject to greater congressional scrutiny, limiting a president to only one term would diminish his effectiveness.
Davis said the present two-term limitation and proposals for a one-term limitation represented a lack of faith in the American political system.
KANSAN
tributaries, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Say Goodnight, Dick
Let's make it clear from the state President Nixon should be
A year ago, the Watergate story was already more than 10 months old, yet the "catches" involved were still small fry. There was good reason to doubt that Nixon had ordered the Watergate buggings, that he had had prior knowledge of the crime or that he had ordered a cover-up of the crime.
But last April 30, all hell broke loose at the White House. Resignations were accepted that day from H. R. Haldenman and John Ehrlichman, Nixon's "closest friends and most trusted assistants in the White House," and from Atty, Gen. Richard Kleindeinst. Since that day, a strong possibility that the President is guilty of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" has existed. And that strong possibility has grown increasingly stronger during the past year.
In "The Prince," Nicolo Machiavelli wrote: "The first impression that one gets of a ruler and of his brains is from seeing the man that he has about him. Where he was, they knew Nicolo had about him only a year ago?
Included in the list of persons who have been indicted or convicted of crimes in the last year are Nixon's White House chief of staff, his chief domestic adviser, his White House counsel, his special counsel, his personal lawyer, his aide to Attorney General Roberts, time secretary of commerce, his one-time attorney general and, of course, his vice president.
The crimes that Nixon's men have been charged with include conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to commit burglary, conspiracy to destroy evidence, perjury, wiretapping and interference with the administration of the internal revenue code. How, one may ask, can all that be possible in an administration elected on a pledge to restore law and order?
Even more important, can it be possible that so many of the President's closest associates are guilty of crimes and the President
is not?
So often in the past, a Nixon official has vehemently denied wrongdoing and vociferously attacked the press for malicious reporting, only to be indicted days later on the same charges reported by the press and denied by the official.
John Mitchell was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on April 13 of last year as saying, "If I had known about the Watergate, I would have stopped it." Would anyone believe that today?
The point is, if so many of Nixon's associates have lied in the past in an attempt to save their careers, is there any reason to think the President would not lie also?
"Nixon is a shifty-eyed, goddamn liar, and people know it," Harry Truman said in "Plain Law." His graphy of Truman by Merl. Muller.
That's putting it rather bluntly. But the truth is, Nixon isn't the virtuous, God-fearing man he tries to make people think he is when he attends services at Norman Vincent Peale's church or says "Love Lord has too much power" or "The Selling of the President 1968" to see how Nixon talks when there aren't any voters or reporters around.
Regardless of whether Nixon is guilty, so many questions have been raised that the American people won't be satisfied until Obama has been tried by the Senate and those questions have been settled.
A definitive answer must be reached concerning Nixon's role in Watergate and in the 1972 campaign fund scandals and concerning his knowledge of irregularities in his own finances.
Impeachment and a subsequent trial by the Senate wouldn't tear this country apart as so many have predicted. This country is being torn apart right now by what's going on in Washington. It is only through the impeachment process that the country can be reunited and the government can get back to its job of running the country.
—Hal Ritter
BY MAY 30TH:
LEADS DEBATE EX-
PLAINING EACH ARTICLE
SENATE OFFICIALLY"
INFORMATION OF HIS IMPEACHMENT AND ISSUES
"A" "GUMMONS". NIKON'S
REPRESENTATIVE APPEARS
RESTORING THE CHARGES
FOR TIME TO REPLY TO CHARGE
IN WRITING.
JOYLY: THE PRESIDENT'S 'ANSWER' IS INTRODUCED IN SENATE. NIKON'S LAWYERS ARE INFORMED THEY HAVE ABOUT A WEEK TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL.
SECOND WEEKIN
THE TRIAL BEGINS THE HOUSE
OF DEATH. SAYING,
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS'
HAVE THE RIGHT TO GROSS
THE COURT. THE LAWYER
AND CALL REBUTIAL Witnesses.
THE TRIAL ENDS.
IF Two-thIRds OF THE SENATORS PRE-
SENT CAST A GUILTY ON ANY SINGLE
ARTICLE, THE PRESIDENT IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
Is Nixon Hurting His Own Defense?
By ELAINE ZIMMERMAN
President's Role in Foreign Policy Is Debatable
Kansan Staff Reporter
President Nixon's principal selling point, he which hopes will counter the rising congressional sentiment in favor of impeachment, is his finesse in foreign policy. But can it be that Nixon's shaky political position is undermining his ability at the table and, ironically, defaucing a major weapon with which he is defending himself?
That question will become increasingly important as the House Judiciary Committee moves toward a conclusion in its impeachment inquiry. A president who has seen an international affairs affair as even detrimental to U.S. foreign policy will have little chance of survival. However, if Nixon maintains his influence in the world community, the fears of international and national chaos that the committee will allow him to retain his position.
IN DECIDING WRETHER ridding the government of an unworthy president is worth possibly sacrificing detente, the Congress must consider the fact that impeachment has more dangers today than in the 1860s when Andrew Johnson was impeached. The world is smaller, and the consequences of action or inaction are greater.
And although Congress must take care not to allow Nixon's authority to diminish to the point that he threatens American interests abroad, it must be equally careful not to catalyze the erosion of Nixon's influence on global affairs by resolution. If impeachment begins, any influence that Nixon has in foreign affairs will be depleted.
However, the fact that Nixon's major weapon in foreign policy is bargaining from strength may help the impeachment movement. The President's persistence in building armies while talking detente may not merely be to sell detente to the military and conservatives. His persistence probably served as a warning for Russians to persuade the Russians to make concessions. A president who is fighting for his hold on government is a weakness, and Nixon's critics have said that maintaining U.S. bargaining chips is a reason that Nixon
One of the impeachment panel's tasks is to decide whether the price of retaining the President has corrupted the goal of—the main reason for keeping him around.
Johnson's Office Saved by Kansan
When asked Oct. 25 whether he thought the Soviet threat in the MidEast War was a result of the Soviets' taking advantage of the impachment attack, Kissinger said, "Speculation about motives is always dangerous. But one cannot have a crisis of authority in a society for a period of months by paying a price somewhere along the line."
By HALRITTER
should be ousted.
If President Nixon is impeded and tried by the Senate, it's doubtful any senator will play as crucial a role in his trial as that played by a Kansas senator during the trial of Andrew Johnson more than a century ago.
WHEREHISTHEPRESIDENT'Scharm in foreign affairs has been eroded by Watergate is a matter of considerable importance. Watergate for Current magazine, described Nixon not as an asset but as the nation's biggest foreign policy liability. Nixon will continue to overreach, strain the world situation and be superfluous and destabilizing, he says.
Actually, Ross and his vote are but a footnote in history. But as the prospect that Richard Nixon will be impeached grows stronger, Ross' story bears retelling.
Sen. Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, a Republican appointed to the Senate in 1866, is remembered in history books as the man who voted the vote that saved Johnson's presidency.
HIS STORY HAS become one of personal courage and heroism, but sadness and disgrace were once a part of it, too. Above all, it is a story imbued with irony.
KISSINGER, OF COURSE, is aware that Ixion's problems and international reputation are being hurt.
Kansas Staff Reporter
Ross' story begins in the early summer of 1866 at a mass meeting called in Lawrence to denounce Sen. Jim Lane and his voting record in the Senate. Lane was a conservative Republican who was sympathetic to Johnson's plan to carry out Abraham Lincoln's merciless reconstruction policies in the South.
When Johnson suspended Secretary of War Edwin Stanton because Stanton insisted on treating the South like a conquered country, Ross voted with the majority in adopting a resolution that declared Stanton's removal unlawful.
Edmund Ross was one of the leaders of that meeting in Lawrence and he introduced a resolution exorcising Lane and his voting record. Only a few days after the meeting, Lane, melancholy and in poor health, committed suicide.
Ross went to Washington in 1868 and soon made it clear that he disliked Andrew Johnson both personally and politically. His support for the Republican government of other, Radical Republicans governs.
THE RADICAL REPUBLICAN senators in Washington, who were already contemplating the removal of Johnson from office, were elated. Soon they were rejoicing because the senator appointed to fill Lane's term was Ross.
AFTER JOHNSON'S SUSPENSION of Stanton, it took the House of Representatives only three days to pass an immigration resolution. The last resolution contained 11 articles, eight of which
Johnson's trial in the Senate before 54 senators began March 5, 1868. Thirty-six votes were needed to convict Johnson. All 12 Democratic senators were certain to vote against conviction, so the judicial committee chose not to lose only six votes from their own party.
For the next two months, as the trial approached its climax, Ross was bombed with pleas, bribes, threats of death and accusations for accuitalt would be political suicide.
SOMEHOW ROSS managed to remain above the furor.
Much to the dismay of the Radical Republicans, six from their party declared at a preliminary party caucus that the evidence was insufficient to convict Johnson under the Articles of Impeachment.
In a telegram to 1,000 of his constituents, sent the day he vote for acquittal, he said, "I have taken an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, and
One senator refused to announce at the caucus how he would vote. He was Edmund Kirkpatrick.
which were based upon the removal of Stanton.
trust that I shall have the courage to vote according to the dictates of my judgment and to express it in my name.
His "not guilty" was barely audible and distant senators called for him to repeat his verdict. The second time his reply was unhesitating and unmistakable.
In describing what he thought when called upon to vote that day, Ross said, "I almost literally looked down into my open grave. Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man can be found in the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever."
ROSS' POLITICAL CAREER was, indeed, virtually finished. He was treated like a leaper on the streets of Washington during the rest of his term.
He returned to Kansas in 1871 and was subjected to physical attacks and social ostracism. Newspapers denounced him editorially.
Eventually, Ross' vote came to be viewed differently. By the time he died in 1907, the denouncements had turned to praise, his political suicide was called political maracynism and of conscience, a consequence of courage, of patriotism. Edmund Ross' vindication was complete.
He will promote nee-isolationism, he will招呼 Hughes, by being an obstacle to foreign affairs. Foreign leaders will take advantage of weakness in Washington, Hughes says, and those who fear foreign opportunity may take risks and perceive nonexistent threats.
RESPECT FOR LEADERSHIP will disintegrate, Hughes says, and the men Nixon needs to pursue foreign policy will be kept away by the cloud over his addiction.
Hughes views Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger as the key in putting distance between the personal interests of Nixon and those of the nation.
THERE IS A **S** school of thought that contends that Nixon still wields power in America.
If the President isn't impeached, Hughes says, Kissinger should legitimize the administration to foreign leaders by taking control and refusing to become domestic利息
However, there is an indirect link between domestic and international concerns, as well as an internal relationship.
Clifford Ketzel, professor of political science, says concern about Watergate is much greater than abroad because foreign nations have their own problems. The U.S. government's domestic issue so far and hasn't directly affected foreign relations. Ketzel says.
N
uses to counter Watergate could be more fruitfully used for other purposes.
A FURTHER DANGER, according to Ketzel, is that Nixon, in trying to build upon his relatively respectable foreign policy to fight attacks at home, may make a bargain that increases his stance in the short run but harms the country in the long run.
Premature agreement in the second session of the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SAIT) is given by Ketzel as an example of such an agreement.
However, he says, "I don't agree that Watergate is a complete minus in relations with the president." What we're doing—that the President is made to pay his income taxes, that Congress is demanding tapes—suggests that a president's responsibility over the presidency seems to be in trouble."
office to preserve the thaw in the cold war,
he says produced the national security fever that gave rise to Watergate.
It is questionable whether detente can save
the nation from another cold war.
Vice President Gerald R. Ford lacks
background, a national constituency and personal investment in detente and thus could be swayed by cold war forces. Neal
views Nixon as the only reliable balance
of power who take a hard line against
Communists.
THERE IS STRONG sentiment against risking what has been gained through detente. Fred Neal, in answer to Hughes, discounts arguments that detente would have taken place without Nixon because of the costs of continued cold war. Similar circumstances existed at least three times in 1945, and the cold war intensified, he says.
Ketzel disagrees. If Nixon is impeached and found guilty, he says, Ford would continue the policies embarked upon by the administration.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $1 a subscriber, $25 for 600 students, $694 for 6004. Student subscription rate: $1.35 a student paid in cash. Subscription and employment advertised offered to all students who have received an advertisement or are not necessarily those of the university. Presses are not necessarily those of the univers-
NEWS STAFF
dviser Susanne Shaw
News Advisor . . Susanne Snaw
Editor Hal Ritter
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Advisor . . . Mel Adams
Business Manager David Hunke