>At 01:34 PM 6/7/01 -0400, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, kelley wrote:
>>
>>> but the point is: no one would have subpoenaed lewinsky (or anyone
>>> else for related reasons) in the first place and clinton wouldn't have
>>> lied under oath.
>>
>>Caldwell's analogy between sexual harassment laws and draconian drug laws
>>is still invalid.
>
>
>that's not why doug forwarded the piece as a response to nathan, however.
No, it's not. Drug laws suck, but sexual harassment laws don't. I was wondering about the legal point re the VAWA:
>Almost anyone who thinks for a second about Jenna's predicament will
>find himself pulled in opposite directions. The dual sympathies that
>result resemble those of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. At least they
>resemble mine. On the one hand, there was simply no way that the
>American people should have had their constitutional right to choose
>their president nullified because moralists objected to that
>president's having had an affair. On the other hand, the President
>was in danger of impeachment because he himself had signed a
>Violence Against Women Act that was an outrage to freedom worthy of
>the Khmer Rouge. And not just signed it-crowed about it, and
>belittled those who raised libertarian objections to it. Under the
>act's feminist-dictated terms, any woman suing a man for the
>nebulous "crime" of sexual harassment was entitled to demand under
>oath his entire sexual curriculum vitae. And that's just what Paula
>Jones did.
Doug