美國彈劾制度中的權力遊戲─從「尼克森�柯林頓案例」探析三權制衡之癥結

「權力制衡」是民主國家憲政體制的重要原則，彈劾制度則為實踐「權力制衡」而設計。美國係三權分立國家，行政、立法、司法相互制衡，國會彈劾權即為其中之精要。在美國政治史中，總統面對彈劾威脅共有三案例：(1)一八六八年第十七任總統強生，參議院審判未達定罪門檻；(2)一九七四年第三十七任總統尼克森，在眾議院即將表決通過彈劾案前夕，於一九七四年八月八日宣布辭職，彈劾程序並未完成，但卻造成巨大的影響；(3)一九九九年第四十二任總統柯林頓，參議院審判表決未過關，保住白宮寶座，不過，也留下了許多引人爭議的話題。本論文係以歷史文獻分析法、個案及比較研究法，並依據決策理論、三權分立之理論與政黨政治理論等，探析個案主體（包括總統、國會、司法部門）的決策選擇、參眾院對決以及三權互動的理論和實務運作，所導致的結果異同。特別集中在尼克森與柯林頓案例：為什麼尼克森放棄在國會彈劾過程中奮戰到底，黯然辭職下台？為什麼柯林頓堅拒辭職，最終力挽狂瀾，而免於步上尼克森的後塵？其中牽涉因素交纏，包括尼、柯二人的總統性格、決策選擇、政黨角力、社會氛圍、輿論民意等，率皆導致關鍵性影響，而使得他們遭受到不同的命運。這也是本論文研究的主軸。本論文共分為七章。第一章緒論係闡述研究動機目的、主軸方向、研究理論方法及範圍限制；第二章則從歷史文獻與憲政發展觀點，探討美國彈劾制度的權力制衡原則及互動關係。第三、四章分別探析尼克森、柯林頓兩位總統迎戰彈劾案的策略。第五、六章則分析比較尼、柯彈劾實例中的內部與外部影響因素。第七章結論，歸納演繹前文諸論述，探討彈劾制度的理想與現實，並為邁向一個更符合時代潮流的彈劾制度新階段，提出檢討修正之研究觀點，俾使美國國會彈劾權的行使，更嚴謹、更周延、更公平合理，以及更減少爭議，而不再只是制憲諸賢所憂心的政黨惡鬥之「尚方寶劍」。

關鍵字

美國彈劾制度；尼克森水門案；柯林頓醜聞案；權利制衡；彈劾應變策略

並列摘要

In American history, there are nine Presidents to date have had impeachment charges filed against them in the House of Representatives : John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Herbert Hoover, Harry S. Truman, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald W. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William Clinton. Of these, only two—Johnson and Clinton—were actually impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to impeach them. And Nixon avoided a trial of impeachment in the Senate by resigning the Presidency on August 9, 1974. These “two and half” impeachment cases brought on great influence in American society, especially the political effects. Unfortunately, the partisan discord has always become the main factor in the process of the Congressional impeachment, which was criticized to be against the essence of the Constitutional rules. And therefore, the purpose of this study is to search for a way to revise the framework of “impeachment System” in lessening the controversy on the impeachment cases. Basically, the right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article Ⅱ, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment : the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This brings us full circle to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a curiosity of terms. How can a crime and a misdemeanor be equated？A high crime is obviously a much greater offense and at a high level than any misdemeanor. In Nixon and Clinton cases, the impeachment grounds related to “high crimes and misdemeanors” had become the controversial points in both sides of the Congress and the White House. Many scholars argue that bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role. Thus, the arguments on the impeachment grounds of “high crimes and misdemeanors” occupied an important part of discussion in this study. Finally, the different results in Nixon and Clinton cases were quite interesting. Why did Nixon decide to resign the presidency before the impeachment trial in Senate ? Why did Clinton win the impeachment battle in Congress ? The decisive factors included as follows: (1)the Presidential character (2)the decision-making process (3)the partisan competition (4)the public opinion, and (5)the cultural value. These have been also deeply discussed in the thesis. In conclusion, the research findings have verified that the power politics in American impeachment system is quite complicate. Constitutional rules seem to be not the only cause or essential consideration for the House and the Senate in executing the impeachment power. In considering to make some changes seriously on the impeachment framework should be taken into action. And the “Nixon & Clinton cases” would be the most valuable experience in doing that.

並列關鍵字

Impeachment System ； Watergate ； Sexgate ； Checks and Balances ； Party Politics ； Power Politics ； U.S. Constitution ； High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

參考文獻

20.陳靜瑜，美國（台北：三民書局，2007）。

22.U.S.Presidential Impeachment, compiled by Robert L. Santos, California State University, Stanislaus, Librarian/Archivist.

50.Mankiewicz, Frank, U.S.V. Richard M. Nixon：the final crisis (New York：Quadrangle�N Y Times Book Co., 1975).

23.Ellis, Joseph J., His Excellency－George Washington（New York：Random House, Inc., 2005).

27.Goldman, Martin S., Richard M. Nixon：The Complex President (New York：Facts on File, 1997).

國際替代計量

美國彈劾制度中的權力遊戲─從「尼克森�柯林頓案例」探析三權制衡之癥結

全文下載

主題瀏覽