Today I saw some talking head on TV say something to this effect, obviously a Clinton apologist, but not doing a very good job of it: (paraphrased, and I wish I'd gotten his name) "I'll stipulate that Clinton did everything that the Starr Report says he did, but, according to the passage in the Constitution, what he's done doesn't fit under the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'" The implication was that Clinton shouldn't be impeached. Obviously an attorney; who else uses the word 'stipulate?'

Now it's time for a little hairsplitting from the other side. Let us examine that particular phrase in the Constitution, and what the Founding Fathers meant by it. First, the word 'high' does not necessarily modify the word 'misdemeanors.' It clearly applies to the word 'crimes,' but not necessarily to 'misdemeanors.' In other words, the phrase could either mean 'high crimes and misdemeanors' the two concepts being separate entities) or 'high crimes and high misdemeanors.'

Now, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a high misdemeanor in legalese. A misdemeanor is usually defined as a minor crime which is not as serious as a felony, the other major division of crimes. So the most logical interpretation of the phrase in the Constitution is that the Founding Fathers were saying that the President should commit no crime whatsoever, or he is liable to impeachment. Obviously there must be some wiggle room; to impeach the President for littering would be going a little bit off the deep end. Also, there weren't nearly so many laws on the books when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, so a lot of what we term misdemeanors would not even have been crimes at that point in history.

This concept is also in line with the FF's determination that the President should be a role model and a symbol of virtue to the American public. A President should not be a criminal, and if he is proven to be a criminal, he should be removed office. This is the way I interpret this particular phrase, and it is definitely the interpretation which fits with common sense.

However, common sense and spinmeisters seldom share the same ballpark, especially in this particular case. The Clinton apologists will use any twisted and blatantly false interpretation that they can to get their president off (no, not that way!). So spare me the argument that Clinton's crimes don't fit under the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' phrase of the Constitution. It just isn't true.

- The Watcher (Is a high crime a crime committed at over 100 feet?)