ON an overwhelmingly partisan basis, the Republican-House leadership appears determined to overturn the 1996 presidential election, forcing President Clinton from office, though a substantial majority of Americans disagree.
Most Americans feel, as I do, that independent counsel Kenneth Starr's allegations against Mr. Clinton (even if proved) do not reach the constitutional level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary for impeachment.
The 19 constitutional experts who appeared before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, as well as more than 400 historians, 400 legal scholars and 10 out of 12 of the nation's most respected legal authorities, support this popular conclusion.
My reading of the Constitution has convinced me that the draconian power of impeachment -- the power to overturn the voters' choice for president -- should be used only as a safeguard against presidential tyranny, not against day-to-day legal issues that are better left to our courts after a president has left office.
By disregarding the standard for impeachment, however, the Republican leadership raises an equally dangerous constitutional challenge -- the specter of an electoral veto by any Congress controlled by a president's political opponents.
I do not impugn the character of my Republican colleagues. I strongly disagree, however, with the ambiguous and unarticulated standard the GOP leadership is using to exercise this awesome power. I fear that the Republican majority, usually sticklers for interpreting the Constitution in terms of the "original intent of the Framers," has allowed its passions to get the better of its prudence.
Despite the prevailing public and legal opinion that Mr. Clinton should be censured or reprimanded but not forced from office, and despite expressions of the president's willingness to accept censure, the GOP leaders threaten to subject this country to the dangerous distraction of a prolonged impeachment trial before the Senate. That's what will happen if the House votes for impeachment today.
They have indicated that they will use the procedural power of their majority status to deny any vote on censure.
Mr. Clinton has admitted fault, apologized and indicated that he would accept formal censure by the Congress. A censure resolution would allow the Congress and the country to get back to work on health care, education, Social Security and other substantive issues that affect the daily lives of working Americans. I believe that censure is the better alternative for our nation.
An unwarranted, partisan and divisive impeachment debate and trial do not serve our national interest. The overwhelming majority of the people calling my office, moreover, believes that its 1996 presidential vote and current opinion are being totally disregarded by the GOP leadership.
In prayer vigils around the nation, Americans will bow their heads as Congress votes, asking God to guide the GOP House leadership back to the Constitution.
I have faith that, ultimately, the voice of the people will prevail.
Democratic Rep. Elijah E. Cummings represents Maryland's 7th Congressional District.
Pub Date: 12/17/98