Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Pro & Con on Clinton's Impeachment. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page discussion of two editorials from 1998, one calling for the impeachment of President William Clinton and one opposing this procedure. The writer discusses which of the two editorials presents the better case. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khclim.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
following discussion analyzes two of those editorials: one from The Nation that opposed impeachment and one from The New Republic, which endorsed impeachment proceedings. By examination of these arguments will
demonstrate that the New Republic editorial presents the best argument because the editorial writer considered a broader perspective that took into account the state of the nation at that particular
time. The Nation editorial that argues against impeachment bases its argument on a two-pronged attack. First of all, the argument is presented that the allegations against Clinton were
not the framers of the US Constitution had in mind when they penned Article II, Section 4 pertaining to impeachment for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." This point is certainly valid.
The framers of the US Constitution were quite clear that they intended impeachment proceedings to be based on political abuses only, i.e. crimes such as treason and bribery, crimes that
relate directly to the abuse of political power. Secondly, the Nation position is based on the indiscretions of the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in constructing the case against President Clinton.
The editorial cites the fact that Starr misled the US Court of Appeals when he argued that the Presidents lawyers should be forced to testify before his grand jury since
impeachment was "too remote a possibility" to create attorney-client problems (Anonymous, 26 October1998, p. 3). Just thirty-six hours after making this argument, Starr was laying the legal groundwork for his
impeachment referral. The editorial goes on to detail how Starr may have overstepped his bounds in manipulating the court system to expand his area of inquiry to include testimony from
Monica Lewinsky. This editorial writer makes frequent use of sarcasm to emphasis points and to cast the opposing position as being not only wrong, but also ludicrous. The GOP
...