Law in Philosophical perspective
During the third year of her term as US President, Wilamina Simpson is faced with an impeachment scandal. In July of her third year, President Simpson made a campaign trip to Michigan. While she was there, she apparently had an affair with the wife, Sharon Lupinski. of the Michigan governor.
The affair was not made public until President Simpson was investigated for improper stock market trading and the special prosecutor was tipped off that Simpson had engaged in the affair. A grand jury investigation questioned Simpson under oath and she denied having the relationship with Lupinski. However, hotel surveillance photographs later put them together in Lupinski’s room. Governor Lupinski divorced his wife and called for impeachment, pointing out that President Simpson had committed a serious crime.
In Michigan, adultery is illegal under the Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931. It states as follows:
“Any person who shall commit adultery shall be guilty of a felony; and when the crime is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, the man shall be guilty of adultery, and liable for the same punishment.”
President Simpson is a widower; legally she is single. She argues that she has committed no crime in the state of Michigan according to the law. While Mrs. Lupinski may have committed adultery according to the law, it is impossible for President Simpson to have done so since she is not an “unmarried man”. The District Attorney in the case, under pressure from the Governor, decided to go ahead with prosecution of the President—the trial proceedings await another development.
The US House of Representatives impeached President Simpson in December of that year based on the charge of committing perjury (lying under oath) before a grand jury concerning her relationship with Sharon Lupinski. Her defense was that she did deny the affair to the press, but only to avoid a scandal and to allow her to continue to do her job. She felt that the Michigan law did not apply to her, so she had committed no crime, just indiscretion in her personal life. She said she had sought counseling and advice from her pastor.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution holds that the President can be removed from office upon impeachment by a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Impeachment is specified for treason, bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, the Constitution does not define what counts as “high crimes and misdemeanors” and there is no consensus about what this phrase means. A “high crime” may refer to a “serious offense” or an “offense by a high-ranking official”, according to some legal commentators. A “misdemeanor” is usually a lesser offense (as contrasted with a felony) such as petty theft, public drunkenness, vandalism, or reckless driving.
Use natural law theory, positivism, and feminist legal studies to analyze the House’s decision to impeach in the case of President Simpson.
First, explain how each of these theories argue proper legal decisions should be made; that is, what is their descriptive approach to legal decision making in general?
Then, demonstrate for each of them whether or not they would agree with the decision to impeach President Simpson.
In your view, which one of the methods provides a better (not necessarily perfect) legal interpretation of the relevant law in this case? Explain why. What are the drawbacks of the other two?
Finally, using each of the theories, explain whether or not each would prescribe the removal of President Simpson from office by the Senate (since she was already impeached for perjury). Would you agree with any of their decisions? Why or why not?