芭芭拉乔丹对弹劾的文章声明(英文版)
华夏典当行官网-圣诞节作文
B
arbara
C
harline
J
ordan
Statement on the Articles
of Impeachment
delivered 25 July 1974, House
Judiciary Committee
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join my
colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving
the junior
members of this committee the
glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this
inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man,
and it has not been easy but we have
tried as
best we can to give you as much assistance as
possible.
Earlier today, we heard the
beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of
the
United States:
document was completed
on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not
included in that
Washington and Alexander
Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through
the
process of amendment, interpretation, and
court decision, I have finally been
included
in
Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not
overstate
the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in
the Constitution is whole;
it is complete; it
is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an
idle spectator to
the diminution, the
subversion, the destruction, of the
Constitution.
nation
themselves?
proceed from the misconduct of
public men.鹿 And that's what we're talking about.
In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from
the abuse or violation of some public
trust.
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a
misreading of the Constitution for any member here
to
assert that for a member to vote for an
article of impeachment means that that
member
must be convinced that the President should be
removed from office. The
Constitution doesn't
say that. The powers relating to impeachment are
an essential
check in the hands of the body of
the legislature against and upon the
encroachments of the executive. The division
between the two branches of the
legislature,
the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the
right to accuse and
to the other the right to
judge, the framers of this Constitution were very
astute.
They did not make the accusers and the
judgers -- and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We've been
talking about it awhile now. It is
chiefly
designed for the President and his high ministers
to somehow be called into
account. It
is designed to
designed as a method of
national inquest into the conduct of public men.虏
The
framers confided in the Congress the power
if need be, to remove the President in
order
to strike a delicate balance between a President
swollen with power and grown
tyrannical, and
preservation of the independence of the
executive.
The nature of impeachment: a
narrowly channeled exception to the
separation-of-powers maxim.聽 The Federal
Convention of 1787 said that. It
limited
impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and
discounted and
opposed the term
misdemeanors,
the Virginia ratification
convention:
branch. We need one branch to
check the other.
be afraid that
officers who commit oppression will pass with
immunity.
community,
parties more or
less friendly or inimical to the accused.鲁 I do
not mean political
parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the
motivation behind impeachment; but
impeachment
must proceed within the confines of the
constitutional term
crime[s] and
misdemeanors.
who said that
land will
suffice to give them speed and effectiveness.
Indignation so great as to
overgrow party
interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else
can.
Common sense would be revolted if we
engaged upon this process for petty reasons.
Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax
Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign
Finance
Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy
Sufficiency, Mass
Transportation. Pettiness
cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such
overwhelming problems. So today we are not
being petty. We are trying to be big,
because
the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence,
we were told that the evidence which
purports
to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by
the President is thin.
We're told that that
evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the
evidence this
morning did not include is what
the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.
The President did know that it was Republican
money, that it was money from the
Committee
for the Re-Election of the President, which was
found in the possession
of one of the burglars
arrested on June the 17th. What the President did
know on the
23rd of June was the prior
activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his
participation in the break-in of Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard
Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard
ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's
fabrication of cables designed to discredit
the Kennedy Administration.
We were
further cautioned today that perhaps these
proceedings ought to be
delayed because
certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming
from the
President of the United States. There
has not even been an obfuscated indication
that this committee would receive any
additional materials from the President. The
committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the
President wants to supply that
material, the
committee sits here. The fact is that on
yesterday, the American
people waited with
great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether
their
President would obey an order of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
At
this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the
impeachment criteria with some
of the actions
the President has engaged in. Impeachment
criteria: James Madison,
from the Virginia
ratification convention.
suspicious manner
with any person and there be grounds to believe
that he will
shelter him, he may be
impeached.
We have heard time and time
again that the evidence reflects the payment to
defendants money. The President had knowledge
that these funds were being paid
and these
were funds collected for the 1972 presidential
campaign. We know that
the President met with
Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters
related to
Watergate, and immediately
thereafter met with the very persons who were
implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was
receiving. The words are:
President is
connected in any suspicious manner with any person
and there be
grounds to believe that he will
shelter that person, he may be impeached.
Justice Story:
extraordinary cases where a
superior power acting for the whole people is put
into
operation to protect their rights and
rescue their liberties from violations.
about
the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the
psychiatrist's office. We
know that there was
absolute complete direction on September 3rd when
the
President indicated that a surreptitious
entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office,
after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr.
Young.
their liberties from violation.
The Carolina ratification convention
impeachment criteria: those are impeachable
4
Beginning shortly after the
Watergate break-in and continuing to the
present time, the President has engaged
in a
series of public statements and actions designed
to thwart the lawful
investigation by
government prosecutors. Moreover, the President
has made public
announcements and assertions
bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence
will show he knew to be false. These
assertions, false assertions, impeachable,
those who misbehave. Those who
James Madison again at the
Constitutional Convention:
if he attempts to
subvert the Constitution.
with the task of
taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,
and yet the
President has counseled his aides
to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy
of grand jury proceedings, conceal
surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a
federal judge, while publicly displaying his
cooperation with the processes of
criminal
justice.
Constitution.
If the
impeachment provision in the Constitution of the
United States will not reach
the offenses
charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century
Constitution should be
abandoned to a 20th-
century paper shredder!
Has the President
committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and
acquiesced
in a course of conduct which the
Constitution will not tolerate? That's the
question.
We know that. We know the question.
We should now forthwith proceed to answer
the
question. It is reason, and not passion, which
must guide our deliberations,
guide our
debate, and guide our decision.
I yield
back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.