The Framers' Intent (or lack thereof) by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW December 14, 1998 DALLAS, TX "60 percent, three-fifths Constituted. Huh! prostituted." -- Public Enemy (from the rap song "Move!") In her Dec. 11 opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-Tx] asked, "would deviance from traditionally moral acceptable patterns of behavior be sufficient grounds for impeachment? A rereading of the Constitution will suggest [the framers] had no such triviality in mind, but rather major offenses against the State." I tend to agree with part of her assessment. Though not technically a framer, a founding father such as Thomas Jefferson, who kept a slave as his mistress, would almost certainly agree that sexual harassment law is a "triviality." And I dare say that Mr. Jefferson would see no need for civil rights laws that allow a citizen to sue over sexual harassment.

EXPLORE CST... Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Ask Jay Crew... -- an advice column Coffee Talk -- complete CST archive Total Linkage!!! -- perfect newsie homepage E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

I wonder, though, if a woman -- and an African-American woman at that -- really wishes to support a political stance that, whether she wants to admit it or not, will result in making the pursuit of civil rights litigation more difficult in the future? If Ms. Jackson-Lee would permit President Clinton to lie about sex during a sexual harassment lawsuit, then do we assume she would allow a Caucasian employer to lie about his favorable treatment of white employees during a racial discrimination suit? Too often, it is lost in the rhetoric, but the crux of the case for impeachment against President Clinton is that his lies were indeed serious ones. No one can deny that, during her sexual relationship with the president, Monica Lewinsky went from intern to White House employee to Pentagon employee. She was then "highly recommended" by the president to Vernon Jordan when she decided to continue her climb up the career ladder. The White House characterizes Clinton's help as "minimal" to Lewinsky's job search. Would that I could walk into future job interviews with a "high recommendation" from the President of the United States! I think this was precisely the point Paula Jones' lawyers were trying to make. The House Judiciary Committee heard from quite a few constitutional scholars who argued that, even if all of the charges against the president can be proven true, none of his offenses would rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as intended by drafters of the Constitution. Since the framers of the Constitution didn't give women the right to vote, much less the right to pursue sexual harassment claims under civil rights laws, it seems that one can't use the framers' intent in defense of the president. This is a modern issue, and it requires considering how modern civil rights law affects interpretations of certain parts of the Constitution. Clearly, the opinions of the framers of the Constitution, who were in many cases both racist and sexist, cannot be relied upon when trying to determine whether lying in a sexual harassment suit is a "high crime or misdemeanor." I believe a Senate trial will be essential to ferreting out a constitutional remedy for the president's lies during the civil rights case brought against him. The Senate will nobly seek to establish good precedent without requiring President Clinton's removal from office. Honestly, though, I wonder if good precedent and the preservation of Clinton's presidency can both be achieved at once.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.