What’s wrong with single sanction punishment?
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006This is a post about politics. But first I have to describe the old honor system at the University of Virginia. (I say “old” because it’s in the process of being revised.)
UVa’s honor system was originally concieved as a single sanction system, meaning that any student proven to have lied, cheated, or stolen would be expelled. Expulsion was the only recourse, and violations were investigated by the accused student’s peers.
On its surface, the policy seems to be a strong deterrent against such dishonorable behavior. But the problem is that the punishment is too strong in the sense that students are reticent to impose it for minor infractions. Indeed, convicted students have sued the University and the honor committee, and the president has overturned the decision of the committee.
Given the risk of being sued, and having the results of a trial overturned, it’s no wonder that students and faculty at UVa are both reticent to turn someone in for honor violations. When I was a graduate student there, the prevailing attitude was “Why bother? It’s not worth the hassle.” A recent survey is illuminating.
What does any of this have to do with politics? Well, consider this: What recourse does the populace have if the president violates the law? Only one: impeachment.
In cases such as that of Nixon, where it is clear that the president has abused his power, impeachment is clearly warranted. But what about cases where a small violation has occurred, but not “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Or cases where the violation is not clearly for political gain?
For example, President Bush has claimed that he does not need to follow the FISA law when acting in defense of the nation. But this law was enacted precisely to give judicial oversight to wiretaps in such national defense situations!
Also consider that the president has issued “signing statements” when singing bills into law. Some of these statements indicate that the president wants the executive branch to ignore some details of the laws. For example, Bush signed a law banning torture, but his signing statement says that he has sole authority over the matter.
Bush has never vetoed a law. This is particularly curious for a president that believes in a strong executive. These signing statements explain why: he intends to ignore the law, rather than veto it and force the congress to explictly override him. If one compares the laws to his statements, the differences are quite surprising.
In my view, the president is taking advantage of the single sanction problem just as cheating students at UVa have. By ignoring the law, the president forces the congress to carefully consider whether the president has done enough to warrant such a serious punishment. By claiming “intelligence failures”, “misunderstood authorization”, etc., the president has plausible deniability against charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Without a smoking gun, congress is unlikely to impeach.
Former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman has written an article comparing the impeachment of Richard Nixon to current calls for impeachment of George W. Bush. She cites Bush’s record on wiretaps, torture, and the case for war in Iraq. Will it happen? Not unless there is clear evidence that Bush intentionally violated his oath of office.
What options does congress have? It can censure the president, but I don’t consider this a real sanction as it has no associated consequences beyond bad publicity. It can block the president’s legislative agenda, but they won’t do that for fear of appearing obstructionist. Cutting funding for the war in Iraq is another option, but then they’ll be painted as unpatriotic.
So impeachment remains the only effective sanction for the president, and just like the UVa honor system, allows a myriad of lesser crimes to go unpunished. Given that the Republican-controlled congress is unlikely to galvanize to punish the president’s excesses of power, I think we can expect the president’s power to grow under the cover of a “war” on terrorism that will never end.
