Im very weary of this debate to be entirely honest. Ive never doubted the severity of lying under oath as opposed to a DUI conviction. I have a J.D. and work as a corporate attorney, so im quite familiar with the procedures of "rule of law."
I realize that it was a violation of the rule of law. and that it wasnt nice for clinton to do what he did.

Now, you say that bush never uttered a single oath of citizenship. I find your statement to be made out of ignorance. You seem to desire to point out some of the basis of the united states (the constitution and perjury, which btw perjury isnt in the constitution explicitly) but ignore the fact that the united states government is founded upon the social contract. For more information regarding this in great detail, please look up John Locke.

In short the social contract asserts that unless you move away from teh country in which you are born you ACCEPT the citizenship of the country in which you live. Bush was over 25 when he commited his DUI crime, and was fully cognizant of the illegal nature of DUI. He had IMPLICITLY accepted the oath of the united states citizen.

What disturbs me, is not that you feel that clintons crime is wrong, but you fail to recognize basic points of U.S. government, which you claim to be a savant about. What disturbs me, is that you dont even realize the foundations of the U.S. government, and the difference between implicit and explicit consent. What disturbs me even more is that you have such a lack of faith in the united states citzenry to uphold what you consider to be "right." Its that kind of attitude that causes a self fulfilling prophecy according to noted sociologist Charles Cooley. Let me provide you a real life example since you seem to enjoy those.



Lets assume that you and a 30 year old woman, are anticipating engaging in sexual intercourse. If everything was based on EXPLICIT consent, you would have to ask permission, to do every action, and get the affirmation for each action from the other party. That my friend would be rather tedious (although across the united states some academic institutions are taking up this policy). Now whats more common is implicit consent. Its implied that if you both consent to the action, that you can essentially do whats necessary to finish the act.

What i really dont understand, is how you blame clinton as the single defiler of the united states government. Political corruption is rampant. However, if you are looking for the person that had total disregard for the U.S. constitution long before clinton was even born, you should seek out the name FDR (Franklin Roosevelt for those unfamiliar with the acronym).

In recap, yes i realize the severity of the issue with clinton, but that doesnt make Bush free and clear, to not hold responsibility for his crimes. Contrary to your limited knowledge of the U.S. government, its based upon more than 1 principle, which i dont think i need to spell out the entire list. Bush agreed to uphold the constitution when he was born, Clinton and Bush's crimes came at different times, but they were both supposed to uphold the constitution.

It just came to me that, in fact, has Bush really upheld the constitution when he was in office? Im reminded of military tribunals. Now in the constitution, i recall some provision that requires trials to be public, speedy and some other stipulations. That would seem like an abridgment of rule of law Bargeroth. Thats right, military tribunals for the people that are being tried in them, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyway just an example that shows the lack of constitutional respect that bush has, not the point though.


Hastley

"who wishes bargeroth could see both sides of the arguement"

Robbrown, to my knowledge clinton wasn ousted, and even after his sexual activity, he still violated less constitutional statements in 8 years, than bush has in 3. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a felony, is how he commited a crime.