Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.37] Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized in opposition to the point of order. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Mr. Hungate. I feel deeply about this point order. I feel that I must speak in Opposition. In MY opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is possibly, probably--I can make that stronger--it is certainly the most important article that this committee may pass out. The offense in this article is truly a high crime and a misdemeanor within the purest meaning, of those words as established in Anglo-American jurisprudence over a period of now some 600 years. The. offenses charged against the President in this article are Presidential offenses. No one else can commit them. You or I, the most lowly citizen can obstruct Justice. You or I, the most lowly citizen, can violate any of the statutes in our criminal code. But only the President can violate the oath of office of the President. Only the President can abuse the powers of the office of the President. When our Founding Fathers put our Constitution together, it was no accident that they separated the powers. Against the backdrop of 400 years of history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence they realized the need to have a device. a constitutional means of removing from. office a chief magistrate who had violated his solemn oath of office. And I respectfully submit that impeachment clause of our Constitution which. fortunately, we have to use now for only the second time, is that means. These are high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning that they are crimes or offenses against the very structure of the state, against the System of government, the system that has brought to the American People and has preserved for the American people the freedoms and liberties which we so cherish. This is uniquely a Presidential offense, a Chairman, and the most important subject of this hearing. There are some--and I -would like to respond right now--there are some among us, there are conscientious, dedicated Americans who harbor a feeling of fear and apprehension at this. They seem--I submit that it is a sensitivity to the travail through which our Republic is now passing, but they feel they recognize, they sense that this is a most grave responsibility and proceeding, and some of them say that this should not be done because it might harm the Presidency. Mr. Chairman, I submit. that only the President can harm the Presidency. No one but the President can destroy the Presidency. And it is our responsibility acting under the impeachment clause, to preserve and protect the Presidency as -we preserve, and protect every other part Of our marvelous structure of Government, and we do it through this-- it through this process. Someone' in his opening statement, referred to this as being a situation Of "We, the people" acting "We, the people," are acting through this procedure, through the provisions put into our Constitution. The American people, Mr. Chairman, are entitled to and -want a Government which they can honor and respect, and they should have it. The American people, Mr. Chairman, are eager to revere their President. They are entitled to a President whom they can revere. Mr, Chairman, I ask, "Is not the violation of the solemn oath of office an impeachable offense?" It is not found in our criminal code. It, is implicit in our Constitution but it is necessarily implicit in the Constitution for otherwise why would there be an oath of office? The offenses charged in this proposed article I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, are offenses which go directly to the breach of a solemn oath of office. Can anyone argue that if the President breaches his oath of office, he should not be removed? I say not. And I respectfully submit that this point, of order should be denied. [00.12.50]