美國國會彈劾柯林頓總統個案研究

The Impeachment of President William J. Clinton: A Case Study

一九九八年初獨立檢察官在調查瓊斯的民事訴訟案中，發現民主黨藉柯林頓總統作偽證、妨礙司法、及濫用職權，乃向眾議院報告，眾議院司法委員會決議控告柯林頓四項罪名，案經眾議院討論，議員多以黨的認同作為討論及投票的取向，對該四項罪名接納兩項，以二百二十八對二百零六票認定柯林頓犯有偽證罪，以二百二十一對二百一十二票認定其妨礙司法罪，並將案情於一九九九年一月十一日送達參議院。參議院依憲法自訂審判程序，聽取檢方及被告的控詞及辯護，聽取證人的證詞，參院也辯論過應否打消彈劾以及應否申誡，共和民主兩黨議員多從政治立場與角度辯詳及詮釋憲法對彈劾的寓意與目的。二月十二日唱名投票，對偽證罪之控告，四十五票贊成有罪，五十五票反對；對妨礙司法罪，贊成與反對票數相等，均為五十票。時共和黨議員只有五十五人，而彈劾則需六十七票方可成立，參院在兩項罪名上均未能湊足使柯林頓去職的票數，因之彈劾案到此結束。

On January 11, 1999, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr reported to the House of Representatives that President Clinton had committed crimes related to witness Monica Lewinsky's perjury in the civil law suit of Jones v. Clinton. The House began the impeachment process by passing two charges of perjury and obstruction of justice against Clinton. The Senate, after receiving these charges, set down rules for the impeachment trial. Senators listened to the charges brought by the prosecutors (the Representatives of the House) and the responses of the President's lawyers. They deposed witnesses, interpreted the impeachment clause of the constitution, discussed substituting a censure for impeachment, and argued whether or not Clinton had committed any crime. Law scholars also debated the role that the Senate plays and the procedures it uses during impeachment trial. Finally, on February 12, 1999, the Senate rejected the charge of perjury by a 55 to 45 vote and the obstruction of justice by a 50 to 50 vote. The G. O. P., who had only 55 members in the senate, failed to get 67 votes necessary to remove Clinton from office.