Did the impeachment of Bill Clinton signify a major constitutional crisis? That question is one on which historians are unlikely to concur, unless they can agree first on the seriousness of the president's offenses. Were Clinton's misdeeds essentially personal—brought onto the public stage only because his enemies were determined to pursue him, even to the point of entrapment? If so, the process leading to impeachment could be said to be little more than a vendetta by a partisan majority in Congress. And surely the Founders did not intend Congress to overrule the decision that voters had made in a presidential election. From this perspective, if a zealous Congress had succeeded in removing the president from office, the nation might have faced a threat to the traditional separation of powers erected by the Constitution.

Such arguments reflect the conviction of most historians that Clinton's actions did not constitute an impeachable offense. But what if the case was not simply "just about sex" but—as a Republican charged—a matter of the rule of law being violated because the chief executive of the United States had committed perjury and abused the powers of his office to protect himself? Such abuses had proven sufficient grounds to set in motion the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Was the true Constitutional crisis, then, a failure of political principle and conscience on the part of Senate Democrats?

No one, including the president himself, defended his personal conduct. On the other hand, the fervid pursuit of his accusers seemed excessive to many observers. Given the ambiguity of the situation, the debate over the meaning of the Clinton impeachment will undoubtedly continue for years to come.

1			Read this brief history of impeachment in the United States. Is there any common link among the few federal officials who have actually faced this process? Based on this article, can you make an argument for what purpose the tool of impeachment should serve in American government? http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html Now read this three-part article from the Washington Post about the Clinton impeachment. According to Bob Woodward, why was President Clinton impeached? Most of the writing on the Clinton impeachment to date still comes from journalists or political commentators. How much time, if any, do you think needs to pass before historians can provide valuable insights on contemporary events? Explain. http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-srv%2Fpolitics%2Fspecial%2Fclinton%2Fclinton.htm