Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.50] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard arguments for the point of order and in opposition to the point of order and the Chair is prepared to rule,. The Chair Makes reference first of all to article 1, section -2 of the Constitution, which gives to the House, the sole power of impeachment and in article H. section 4. the declaration that impeachment shall be, for treason, briber, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So the issue of impeachment and the, nature of an impeachable offense is, as the gentleman knows, the very nature and subject of these proceedings, and no point of order can possibly the in the nature of a challenge as to the impeachability of such offenses. That is a matter, as the Constitution has already clearly stated, for the committee which has been delegated with this responsibility by the, House, the House itself, and ultimately the Senate, to decide. The gentleman will be, given full opportunity to debate. this question and attempt to persuade his colleagues that no grounds for impeachment have been stated in the articles. But the issue does not state a, point of order. Rather, the issue presented in the, point of order is a constitutional argument that must persuade the Congress. And therefore the Chair rules against the point of order. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, before going further, I should like to ask unanimous consent, that debate on any' amendment, to the substitute, including amendments in the nature of a motion to strike., be limited to a period not to exceed 40 minutes. to be divided equally between the proponents and opponents of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman is recognized. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the chairman. I thank both the, distinguished gentlemen from California, for drawing the issues and the, 'problems before us in the skillful way they have done throughout this proceeding. Mr. Truman once said or asked people if they knew what it Was like to have a load of hay fall on them. and I think- this morning I know what he meant. All I can say is that sometimes -when You practice law you find that, the best cases do not come in through the most ideal clients. That is our problem today I apologize to my colleagues for the lateness with which they received my substitute, but I know all of them to be. distinguished and able attorneys and conversant with the facts and problems before us here. I should make. it, clear that the Hungate substitute is really a distillation of the thought of many members from many areas and many differing, political philosophies and the, input of many of the capable members of this committee, for which I only seek to be a catalyst. It would be rather difficult or impossible for me in 5 minutes to explain all the points that should be and will be considered and debated here. Various colleagues, I know. are knowledgeable on the various subparagraphs (1) through (5) and Will outline this in more detail in our debate I believe the, gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, touched some elements that are correct in that basically, as I see it, article I involves obstruction of justice, standards of conduct that may be criminal, and basically perhaps what we have today involves abuse of powers, and whether we shall say that you can be President as long as, you are not subject; to a criminal charge, whether that is the level of conduct we require, or whether we shall set a somewhat higher standard , and whether we shall set that standard so that we will realize that the, oath. of office of the Presidency means what it meant to Madison and the Founders be-fore the Constitution was even completed. Now, some -would believe that if we find any one of these five subparagraphs which support impeachment, and I think more would believe that a combination of one or more, or all of them. would Support impeachment because we do discuss and consider repeatedly violations in many cases repetitive conduct within the article and certainly repetitive conduct--I mean within the subparagraph and certainly repetitive conduct throughout the five articles. I would think that if only one instance of improper conduct. had I Occurred, and it perhaps could be quite, serious, I do not know that we would be here today. I think this sort. of impeachment proceeding was deliberately, set up historically so that those who are in political life. those who can understand some of the pressures and nuances involved in serving in public office try the President, a political figure and for my part, I think there, is more tolerance in such a political body than one would find in just a body without the experience, as I have said, of the pressures and difficulties in public life. I say again if only one violation had occurred. I would doubt we should be here. Men are, human. Humans are frail. But I think we discuss, consider, and see here a Consistent disregard of the law. To give all example, I think if a man is driving in his car and he crosses the center line, that is not grounds for a whole lot of punishment taking his license- or- thoroughly incarcerating him. But if he Crosses the center line 15 times every mile he drives or if he insists on straddling the center line all the time, then I think, we find action has to be taken. I thank the Chairman. [00.20.28]