The life of an American includes the right to have and maintain a private life outside of work, school, play, etc. However, when there are certain circumstances placed on this American life, such as being elected president, the privacy that is taken for granted for so many years dissipates as soon as the residence changes to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Things such as what kind of running shoes are worn, to whom personal phone calls are made, what the name of the first cat and dog are, how often and where the president's religion is practiced, never ending rumors regarding sexual controversies, and how often a super size french fries order is placed at the local McDonalds are only a few of the privacy sacrifices that are made by the president of the United States. These issues dealing with the part of life that the president lacks are addressed in the five following sections: the Constitution, the presidency, civil rights and liberties, public opinion and media, and political process and media.

The American Constitution includes seven articles, and Article II is the Executive Article, which consists of four sections. Section I is about the president: his term of office, the procedure for electing the president through electoral college, qualifications, presidential succession, compensation and oath of office. Sections II and III mention the president's powers and duties and last section four is about impeachment. However, here I want to focus on the president's powers, duties and how the constitution controls the president with impeachment.

Compared to any other articles, the Executive Article is so short and only includes basic things about the president. For this reason, it might be vague about what the president should be. The reason why I used the word "Vague" is because it is so simple and basic that its interpretation could be too various since interpretation depends on where the president himself puts emphasis on certain parts in the Constitution. Interpreting differently, they expanded their power. Although the framers of the Constitution were really careful as how to limit a president's power so that the possibility of this abuse of power is minimized, like a system of checks and balances, still it vaguely states about the role of the president. As a result, there have been those presidents who slightly expand their power under the constitution.

Abraham Lincoln, 16^th president of the United States, expanded the executive branch. During the Civil War, he gave a number of orders that beyond the guaranteed presidential authority in the Constitution. One order was to establish a blockade of southern ports, committing acts of war against the Confederacy without the approval of congress(Berry)

Also in the 1930's, when the Great Depression swept all parts of the United States, the 32^nd President, Franklin Roosevelt, used his power to legislate the New Deal to drive the economic crisis from the United States. However, in this case the president received wide latitude from Congress to do what he thought was necessary to solve the nation's economic ills(Berry)

Finally, the 41^st president, George Bush, as the commander in chief during the Gulf situation, sent troops to Kuwait without first asking Congress.

With such a flexible constitution, nobody could know to what extent the president's power will be expanded. But, one thing we can be sure of is that at times, they could override the constitution without violating the Constitution.

In section 4, there is Impeachment. So far, there have been two presidents who almost got Impeachment, but not exactly.

The 37^th president, Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to extend his power through section 3 of The Executive Article during the Watergate trial. This article gives the President the power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". President Nixon argued that this power allowed him to override a judicial subpoena for the Watergate tapes. The attempt failed when the Supreme Court rejected this notion on the basis that, being a judicial decision, it would violate the separation of powers. Ultimately, Nixon resigned before he was impeached for abusing his authority, defying congressional subpoenas and violating his oath to faithfully uphold the law(Berry)

Following the death of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson was instated as the 17^th president. The Civil War was over and the North had emerged victorious. Johnson, who sympathized with the South, pardoned nearly all the Southerners for being a part in the Rebellion. He also urged Congress to allow southern representatives, who passed tests of loyalty, to retain their seats. Johnson believed that Congress had no business interfering with the states' rights. As a result, he tried to block Congress from organizing new state governments and failed. The tension between president and Congress peaked when Johnson attempted to fire the secretary of war and Congress responded by impeaching him for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Johnson was found not guilty as the result of the trial, but his power was broken.

These days, there is another possible impeachment case surrounding the scandals of the 42^nd president, Bill Clinton. He allegedly made Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern who claims to have had an affair with the President, lie about sexually harassing Paula Jones while he was the governor of Arkansas. If it turns out to be true, he will be impeached for abuse of his power. However, nothing has been proved to be true so far and more and more other scandals he might have are coming out.

Although the framers of the Constitution really wanted a strong leadership to bind the states together into a unified nation, there was no precedent that they could compare with. The only president whom they had to set an example was George Washington, the 1^st President of the United States. For this reason, the Constitution couldn't help but be simple and basic regarding the President. We will see Presidents who expand their power under the Constitution, and who overstep this power beyond it in the future. Whatever happens, there is one thing that we should do: although the Constitution states vaguely about the president, we have to watch carefully how presidents expand their power and if it is proper because ultimately, we have to decide whether the president has done it right or wrong.

Every four years, there is a presidential election in the United States. As a presidential candidate prepares for election day, along with their campaign members, there is a vast amount of planning that is involved. Much of this planning involves dealing with as well as using the media in order to obtain the most votes possible. The strategy that the campaign uses in the many months leading to judgment day is crucial to the outcome of the candidate.

Recently, there have been movies made that satirize the election process such as "Wag the Dog." During this movie, there is a war that is fabricated in Hollywood through film technology that gains the media's attention in favor of the President which eventually gains him a re-election.

Obviously, this is an extremely unlikely case, but it does display the media's power in the election process. However the media chooses to portray each candidate is inevitably how the majority of the population will choose to view the candidate as well. For instance, in 1992 when President Clinton was running against Senator Dole, the press that Clinton received from playing a saxophone on a late night talk show earned him a large number of votes with the Generation X age group.

However, no matter how many citizens chose to vote for Clinton or Dole, the decision was really up to the Electoral College. Each President is voted into office by the Electoral College rather than the actual public. Not to say that the votes don't count, the members of the Electoral College vote based on the number of votes that each of the candidates receive. So, in actuality, the American citizens are "voting for Electoral College members who promise to vote for the candidates in their respective political parties." (The U.S. Electoral College Calculator.). This is why positive media coverage is a vital tool in the process of electing a president. The states with larger populations are entitled to more electoral votes than the less populated states. This is why it is important for a candidate to win states with many electoral votes such as California and Texas rather than Wyoming or Idaho who have a population that is significantly less.

The process of electing a president through an Electoral College has been in existence since George Washington was elected. However, recently there have been discussions of ending the process and "let citizens vote directly for the president." (House considers ending Electoral College, Detroit News, 9-7-97). This proposal was made by the House of Representatives in September 1997 that would terminate the Electoral College by the addition of two amendments to the Constitution. A direct vote would require the candidates to spend much more time in each state and would be "almost like running for governor." (House considers ending Electoral College, Detroit News, 9-7-97.)

Whether or not the House decides to present the proposed two amendments that would end the College or not, the media will still remain an important, and quite frequently, destructive tool in the election process.

The president of the United States has always been a representative of the nation. The president must be by law a U. S. born citizen, he must have lived in the country for at least fourteen years, and must be 35 years or older. Aside from the legal requirements there are many qualities a president must have before he can be elected. The president must be learned in politics, usually having been in some kind of political office. More than anything the president must dedicate his life to running the country. Once the president steps into office everything he does or doesn't do is evaluated (Berry)..

The president's influence is related to his professional reputation and prestige (Neustadt). An example of this is when Bill Clinton was running for president he promised major health care reform, he proposed an ambitious reform bill to congress and it got denied. Failure to get the bill passed resulted in Clinton floundering and losing the support of the public. When the president was able to pass bills that were very successful he gained support and a good reputation. The American voters seem to usually judge a president on major issues he address or crisis he deals with or most importantly the economy. The economy is usually more in the hands of the consumers rather than the president (Kiewe).

The president has specific duties assigned to him listed in Article II of the Constitution. Upon entering office he becomes the administrative head of the nation, or in other words he is the man in charge. He also becomes the commander in chief of the military,(Berry) this was pertinent during the time of the earlier presidents like George Washington. In the 1970's there was the Cooper Church Resolution which denied the president the power to send troops into Cambodia without the consent of Congress (Kiewe). The president also has the power to call congress into session The power to veto a bill, but congress has the power to override his decision. He has the power to appoint officials, like judges, or cabinet members. The president can make treaties with foreign powers with two thirds consent of congress. The president can also grant pardons to people who have committed crimes against the United States except Impeachment. Throughout this list of powers the president is granted most of them he cannot do without the consent of congress. This is a good example of how the separation of powers and the structure of checks and balances comes into play (Berry).

The president besides having to deal with all these tasks must appeal to the people. He must prove to the people that he is the appropriate candidate for the job. It is said that many voters pick a candidate by surface qualities alone. Is he young and attractive, does he have appropriate morals, family life? In order for a man to become president one important quality he must have is rhetoric, or the ability to speak persuasively especially in a crisis situation in other words, crisis rhetoric (Kiewe). Can the president talk about sticky situations successfully? It is said that communication is the vehicle for human action. How successfully does the president deal with negative allegations or scandals brought up against him? Can he do his job? I think that this question is more important than what the president does behind closed doors. The topic at hand is what to believe, right now the president, they are charging Bill Clinton with countless accusations of sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct.

The president is the head of this union of states, but he is first a citizen of this country. He enjoys the same civil rights and civil liberties that any other citizen of America does. Nobody, not even the President is above the law. If the President is found guilty, the courts have every right to punish him. In none but the most exceptional cases the President is granted immunity from the trial until the end of his term, on the basis that the proceedings of the trial could interfere in his duties as the President. Throughout the history of this country, only three presidents, besides Clinton, had court cases filed against them : Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F Kennedy. The cases against Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman were dismissed before they were sworn in, while the case against Mr. Kennedy, which was concerning an auto accident, was settled out of court.

The president, Bill Clinton, is being sued by Paula Corbin Jones, who alleged that Mr. Clinton, while still the governor of Arkansas made sexual advances towards her, which she vehemently rejected. She claims that after that incident, her superiors at work dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances. She therefore sued on four counts :

• 1) Bill Clinton under the state law deprived her of her rights protected by the constitution
• 2) Bill Clinton and Ferguson (State Trooper) engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights.
• 3) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• 4) Defamation on the basis of the comments made to the press by Ferguson and the statements of the President's agents.(legal information institute at Cornell University)

That the President has an insatiable sex appetite should not be any of the peoples' concerns, but if he is proven to have sexually harassed and threatened, punished, or rewarded on that basis, then, nothing stops the courts from punishing him as they would any other citizen. Article II Section 4 of the constitution says that the President can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (Constitution of the United States of America). It however does not elaborate on what misdemeanor stands for; that is left for the courts to decide.

This isn't the only case in history where the President was allegedly sexually involved with someone. John F Kennedy is known to have had affairs with Marilyn Monroe and others, President Harding was known for his sexual liaisons and Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt's wife was bisexual, and was known to have had a lady lover for years. But these cases never had so much coverage by the media. It seems that the focus has shifted from more important issues of a political nature to more sensational news that will maximize newspaper and tabloid sales. In those days probably, the freedom of speech and press was restricted. But now freedom of speech and press is being exploited. The tabloids under the pretext of freedom of speech print slanderous remarks just to boost sales.

The subject of civil rights and liberties has never been easy. These rights and liberties are often misused and abused. It is up to the courts to decide if any action can be deemed unconstitutional.

Media has a powerful influence on the majority of the people in this country and also the world. Politicians have used it as an invaluable weapon to build their image in the public eye and get elected into different positions in the government. But we all know that the media does not only work for these politicians, it can also work against them. Many a politician have been scrutinized by the media, not only in their public person, but also in their private lives. One of the biggest examples of this particular situation is our president, Bill Clinton.

  Recently we have been hearing about the president’s affair with the White House intern Monika Lewinsky. The media has been crazed with the investigation about this issue. This leads to inquiring the private affairs of the president. This is one of the hottest issues now days in the media: it sells newspapers, magazines and runs T.V. shows. People make jokes of this matter and some even question his morality for his supposed affair with his intern.

Nevertheless, besides the roll that Clinton plays as a president, he is also a citizen of the United States. Being a citizen, he too has the same rights as all the citizens do, one of which is the right to privacy. The PEW RESEARCH CENTER took a poll on what the public have to say about this issue. The poll said that, 2-to-1 citizens say that " realistic appraisal that politicians should be judged on their public performances rather than a cynically driven lowered expectation of moral standards." Americans also believe that Clinton does not need to provide any information on that matter and that it would be fine if he withhold certain private matters. By judging him would be so to take away his basic rights to privacy. There has been another poll taken of the American Opinion in the Wall Street Journal, by Jackie Calmes. It said that there are people who believe that Clinton should be disqualified from his top-ranking general, presidency, head of a corporation, or a member of Congress. Yet the poll says, "3 out of 5 Americans say the president should not resign even if there is proof that he lied" and two-third say "he is entitled to keep private matters to himself generally."

In past history there have been reports and rumors of presidential indiscretion. The renowned president John F. Kennedy also had liaisons with other women besides his wife, one of them which was the famous actress Marilyn Monroe. In those more conservative days even, J.F.K wasn't put on the stand for his affairs. Ofcourse, in JFK's situation, none of the women actually filed a suit against him as did in the case of Bill Clinton. But never-the-less, the situation is the same and there wasn't any talk of J.F.K's resignation or removal from power. His rights to privacy was maintained. So why the inconsistency now? Why should we not give Bill Clinton the same consideration?

Also in this day and age, having affairs, even though immoral, have become more of a mandane situation. More and more people seem to get involved with others besides their spouse. Now days, sex and affairs are not at any rate called conservative anymore or private. Society has already adapted somewhat to this notion. There are multitudes that are in the same boat as Bill Clinton in their private lives, but we don't see them being questioned about their moral values, their work capabilities.

Bill Clinton has been performing well at his presidential duties and responsibilities. His main duty is to govern our country the best way possible. His private matters are of no ones concern or shouldn't be as far as his work is done efficiently.

Finally, what it basically comes to, is that the president is entitled to his own privacy given to him and all citizens by the constitution itself. Therefore, the president's private matters should not influence our judgement towards him. What is important for the citizens is to see how well his performance is in public service and not focus on his private matters which are of no ones conerns.