Editorial Roundup: South Carolina

Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:

___

Dec. 18

The Times and Democrat on the impeachment process:

Jay Pearson of Orangeburg writes letters to the editor periodically. His latest correspondence begins, “I am of the opinion that many believe that should the House vote to impeach President Trump, he will be removed from office … so to set the record straight, I offer the following.”

From there, Pearson explains the impeachment process as follows: “Reducing impeachment of a sitting president down to the nitty gritty, the House is the investigating body. And after assembling a litany of facts can vote to impeach or not to impeach. The House cannot issue a finding of guilty. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, that finding is sent to the Senate where the impeachment trial is conducted. The chief justice of the Supreme Court presides, the Senate is the jury and the House appoints prosecutors from its membership. To impeach a president requires two-thirds of the Senate to vote for impeachment. If the Senate votes to impeach, the president is removed from office and the vice president becomes president.”

Pearson is right to be concerned about what people know about government and its workings. Surveys routinely show very few understand the basics of the federal, state and local systems, from town halls to Congress, from magistrate’s court to the Supreme Court. And with impeachment an unusual aspect of government as outlined in the Constitution by the nation’s founding fathers, it’s a safe bet that many remain unclear on what they are witnessing.

Here’s where the process stands:

-After debating two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to approve both articles.

-The first article of impeachment accuses Trump of abusing his office by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and withholding U.S. security aid and a White House meeting. The second accuses him of obstructing the investigation into his misconduct by blocking witnesses and disobeying subpoenas.

- The two articles of impeachment now go to the House floor for a vote. If a simple majority of the House votes to approve either article, Trump will become only the third president ever formally impeached, with impeachment meaning the equivalent of Trump being charged with wrongdoing.

- If the House as expected votes for impeachment on Wednesday (Dec. 18), a trial is to follow in the Republican-led Senate, with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. Partisan lines are expected to be drawn in the upper chamber the same as in the House, with the Republican majority already vowing there is no way Trump will be found guilty. A primary question is how much of a trial there will be. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is advocating a short process. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is saying he will go with the president’s wishes in determining how many witnesses to call. Either way, the Senate is not going to convict Trump and oust him from office.

If the House vote on impeachment looks like a partisan exercise and the Senate’s plans appear much the same, know that is exactly what the Trump impeachment is: A fight between Democrats and Republicans over a controversial president.

The founders did not intend impeachment to be a partisan process. It was to be a last resort in removing a leader commiting “high crimes and misdemeanors,” thus endangering the country.

So what is unfolding in Washington now is little more than Democrats seeking to undo a Republican president and Republicans, no matter what, determined to prevent such. Trump will be impeached by the House and its Democrats and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate.

In the end, the entire process will further divide the country and, ominously, set the stage for partisan impeachments for presidents to come.

Online: https://thetandd.com/

___

Dec. 17

The Post and Courier on researching gun-related violence:

Research into gun-related violence has not been banned in the United States, but a series of measures has had nearly the same crippling effect when it comes to federal funding for studying one of the nation’s leading causes of death.

That doesn’t make sense from a public health standpoint in a nation looking for answers to suicides, homicides, gun accidents and mass shootings. Such research could provide critical data and evidence to help us understand the underlying causes of such tragedies and how to prevent them.

That’s why we are encouraged by the surprising news that congressional leaders have made a deal to provide federal funding for gun violence research.

Under the agreement, approved by the House on Tuesday and headed to the Senate as part of the $1.4 trillion federal spending plan, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health would each receive $12.5 million to study gun violence, according to The Washington Post.

The move comes almost seven years to the day of the horrific killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It would be the first such funding in more than 20 years and provide some much-needed tools for those who have long advocated for research into the core issues surrounding gun violence.

Frustration over the lack of federal funding was evident in a February op-ed written by Dr. Deborah Greenhouse, a Columbia pediatrician and a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“If this were an infectious disease, we would be dedicating funds to research the causes of the outbreak. We would determine the root cause and we would move quickly to create a vaccine to prevent future outbreaks of the disease,” Dr. Greenhouse wrote. “Yet, with gun violence prevention, we cannot make this same type of meaningful progress. Our federal leaders have failed to dedicate needed funding to research - we are not finding the root causes and have been unable to find evidence-based ways to prevent future gun violence tragedies.”

The most notable stumbling block to funding federal research into gun violence has been the 1996 Dickey Amendment, which prevented the CDC from using federal money to “promote gun control” or advocate for it. The namesake of the rule, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, said he never intended to limit research, but the measure had that effect.

The public’s growing dissatisfaction with the federal government’s response to gun violence last year helped push congressional leaders to clarify that the CDC could conduct such research despite the Dickey Amendment, but lawmakers provided no new money, the Post reported. Tuesday’s action represents a promising next step.

“This is a deal of historic proportions,” said Mark Rosenberg, who led the CDC’s research on gun violence in the 1990s when Congress shut off funding.

The $25 million is only half of what was requested, but if the money survives the budgeting process, it will be a good start on learning more about the many facets of gun violence. That includes risk factors, the effects of exposure to violence and which prevention methods work best.

We encourage the Senate to retain this important funding in the spending bill. It will help broaden our understanding into why gun violence occurs and how to prevent it. And it could very well help save lives.

Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/

___

Dec. 13

The Index Journal on celebrating people doing good deeds:

‘Tis the season, apparently. That is, it’s the season when - largely - good things are happening, good deeds are being carried out. OK, there are exceptions, such as when some jerk holds up a liquor store or a convenience store. It’s the season for that activity too. Or a guy ostensibly lets hunger take the wheel of the car and he wrecks several vehicles.

But let’s focus on the good stuff today, OK?

How about a thumbs up to the firefighters from Hodges/Cokesbury came to the rescue of Big Oaks Rescue Farm. When the farm’s water pump quit working, firefighters were asked if they could help, and they did so by hauling 1,200 gallons of water out to serve the horses and other animals housed at the farm. That’s the community spirit.

And how about Debbie Miller, the behind-the-scenes woman who for 29 years kept Greenwood High’s athletics department in check and in order while serving as secretary. Heck, Miller’s name is as synonymous with Greenwood Eagles as, say, Pinky Babb. It wouldn’t be a stretch for Debbie Miller’s name to wind up emblazoned on some part of GHS’s athletic facilities.

High school football has wound down. Of course, we still have college games and the NFL games that will take us all the way up to the Super Bowl in 2020, but we’d be remiss if we did not take a moment to extend a big thumbs up to the Saluda Tigers who on Dec. 6 came from a deficit to soundly defeat Barnwell and clinch a state championship. Well done, Tigers. Well done.

By the way, word is that folks in Saluda really appreciated the full-page coverage the next day, complete with a catchy headline – “Purple Reign” - to denote the victory. While some copies of that page might not have been as crisp and clean as we’d like, here’s the good news. We are pre-selling replicas of that page in poster form. They’ll be on high-grade poster paper with vibrant colors, suitable for framing. Really, they’d make great Christmas gifts for members of the team and football staff, as well as Tiger fans. They won’t be available until after Christmas, but heck, isn’t it fun getting at least one more gift after the 25th? We’ll share details on how you can get one in the paper and on our Facebook page.

Online: http://www.indexjournal.com/