Philosophy

Within the circle of the English political philosophy, one of the most renowned philosophers renowned for his contribution is the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Moreover, not only is he well known for his works but also perceived as the pioneer philosopher in what is now referred to as modern legal philosophy. A whole range of dispute resolution strategies which comprehensively read out laws as well as modes of punishment for specific wrong conducts that are disallowed are found within all human societies. Like the current American legal system that sets out laws and clearly states respective punishments for wrongs, in the early times, the English society saw religious institutions form their own laws and systems that upheld the rule of these laws. The concept of lawful conduct was not limited within religion but also saw the English nobles formulate their own laws that could enable them to govern their tenants on their property. As such the English society yielded vassals, barons, seneschals as well as squires.
Thomas Hobbes is among the early legal philosophers who identified the law as an appropriate tool that can be hired by the state in a bid to avoid lawlessness and exercise control of its citizens. In this regard Hobbes understanding of the societys organization through regulation was in terms of where the regulation stemmed from as opposed to the content of this regulation (Dyzenhaus, Moreau and Ripstein 2007). As such, to Hobbes the societys organization existed from the state. Rallying this thought parallel to the Clinton case, we therefore have to assess the nature of the norm that was being invoked as broken in the impeachment of the president. All American cases that occur within its system of regulation are motivated by conduct that is primarily perceived as contrary to societys expectation with the norm that is ideally proposed stemming from Americas representatives. The Clinton case was thus appearing before the American system because the president had as his prosecutors alleged, obstructed the norm that was ideally supposed to be adhered to. Society had set its way of life and the presidents conduct had gone contrary to this way of life. This implicates that Hobbes by dint of the fact that the origin of the societys norm that was judging the president originated from the American society he would have supported this law. This is because this same society embedded its symbol in the president thus implying that he was representative of all Americans and thus though one person he constituted the whole country. Hobbes interpretation would be that the norm that the president had contravened did not originate from outside the American society, from factions such us religion, but within it and therefore justifiable. There is a contradiction though, because the president as the representative of the country is the leader and thus bigger than the law. As a result of this, the law which is smaller than the president can not be used to assess his conduct and ultimately punish him. On the contrary, as a result of the presidents political affiliation to the Democratic Party, with the American political organization being marred with political dissidence, which primarily pit opposing sides against each other, in a bid to control power and ideological furthering, the nature of Clintons impeachment trial can not be said to be stemming from the desire to uphold the fabric of the American society. As such, the animosity that characterizes the political parties can be said to be the major factor that was motivating the presidents impeachment, with those that wanted to exercise control and power using Americas delineation of the norm, as a conduit to achieve their objective. As such Hobbes would have seen the origin of morality as stemming from individuals as opposed to the American society. Some quarters have argued that impeachment in its nature, ideally is a political process as opposed to a legal process.
Hobbes understanding of societys regulation can be well understood by analyzing his understanding of what constitutes a commonwealth, of which to him was divided into the supreme power vested in the leader who was in command of his subjects. In this regard, Hobbes postulated that the leader was the bigger person which primarily meant that he was ideally the morality of the society. As such Hobbes did not take the same road as that of the famous jurist Sir Edward Coke who challenged the claims by the seventeen century Kings James 1st and Charles 1st that they were above the what regulated society. Following this stand, Hobbes appeared to be taking the same side as the royal kings, agreeing with the fact that they were above societys norm of conduct and thus something that was below them could not be used to punish them. What comes out of this interpretation is the fact that Hobbes disagreed with morality ruling the country as opposed to people in flesh. He noted that it would be dangerous to place the leader, in this regard President Clinton, at the mercy of his opponents, which we can take to be members of the Republican Party, as well as those who deferred in ideology with the Democratic Party. Hobbes queried that if the King, President Clinton, was to be at the mercy of societys morality, then the wrong interpretation in the jurists assumption would be that the jurist had assumed that the President was a kind of man with his senses in their natural form, even if he were assumed to be illiterate could not find himself ruled by his opponents whom he believed could kill him or act to his detriment when he could not adhere to their law. Here the Jurist had built his assumption on a fallacy. The second question of great significance that Hobbes builds is the fact that the societys morality is nothing but mere words on mere paper.  It was wrong to assume that this mere words embedded in the American penal code would control the people. As such the resultant of embedding the states supremacy in mere paper and words would be putting the existence of the country at the mercy of anarchy and lawlessness, because people would disregard these words. Hobbes had yet another third assumption. He suggested that in a bid to control the country, the President ought to instil the fear of God in the American people which ideally means that the President must use means, which in this regard can be taken as the law that primarily threatens the people with harm should they act in disregard of the president like they were agitating for his impeachment. In comparison to the Clintons Impeachment trial Hobbes analyses of the law realizes solutions that are much to the delight of the president. In the first instance the president was to be the supreme power. As such, he would be above the law and insulated from public scrutiny for he himself was the beyond reach. Hobbes justification of Clintons all powerful status is justified by the fact that by stripping the president of the power beyond the state would be assuming a dangerous path as it would place him at the mercy of his political opponents and thus resulting into a dysfunctional country where the leadership was constantly threatened by rebellion resulting into civil war that would disintegrate society.
    Though Austin responds with much the same position as Hobbes, he argues that there exist fundamental system frameworks that can be used as instruments to tame the all-powerful wild of the executive. Austin recommends the concept of public opinion as well as popular morality to be the major instruments that rally and gauge the executives conduct in a bid to regulate it towards meeting societys standards. A significant factor to note in this assumption is that this morality and public opinion does not fall within the confines of official regulation but rather outside this circle. The executives imbuing of reason as formulated within the accepted standards that form the universal opinion of morality is thus the only means of the state to regulate his conduct. Another factor worth comprehending in Austins philosophy is the fact that the morality and public opinion must be conventionally accepted within the state forming the standard norm of majority of Americans. As such this morality must stem from the cultural delineations of this society. The implication of Austins thought to Clintons impeachment is that were his conduct in contraband of the morality of the society within which his powers stemmed, he was expected to be answerable to these allegations. Austin though acknowledges the diversity of morality with its array of definitions rendering it impossible to limit it within a single square. To this dilemma he postulates the concept of popular opinion of the public to be the backdrop against which the decisions of the penal system are supposed to be upheld. As a result of the diversity of the American society, with divergent cultures, morality alone was not to be the basis of Clintons impeachment but rather public opinion.