The Paradox of Clinton Winning and the Presidency Losing

Abstract

sources, and prerogatives of the presidency. Andrew Johnson's narrow acquittal in his impeachment trial was followed by thirty years of what was described by Woodrow Wilson as congressional government. After Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress passed framework laws providing itself with a collaborative role in developing budgetary, fiscal, diplomatic, intelligence, and military policies, and an independent counsel that helped check the Reagan administration in the Iran-contra affair. How will President Bill Clinton's impeachment and acquittal affect the post-Monica presidency? A public law approach to the study of the presidency would tot up all the White House legal wins and losses, note all the precedents established or reaffirmed, and conclude that Clinton had lost badly in the courts, therefore weakening the presidency. In technical and institutional senses this is true, but why then is Clinton still in office and standing tall? If the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) won so many legal victories, why was Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr unable thereafter to indict Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the proverbial ham sandwich? Why, at the end of the day, did Congress refuse to reauthorize the Office of Independent Counsel? The theory of prerogative power may be useful in putting the legal backlash against Clinton's claims in the context of a strong political frontlash effect that saved Clinton and doomed Starr.'