Clinton Vs Jones Case Study

Introduction
On the afternoon of May 8, 1991, Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones—of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission-- works the registration desk at an official industrial conference in Little Rock, Arkansas (Motos, 1998). While working this event housed in an Arkansas hotel, the Governor of Arkansas requests Jones to meet with him in a business suite within the hotel. Therefore, Jones understood this request to be within the official state employee business. Hence, Jones obliged the governor’s request.
Jones alleged that the governor made unwanted sexual advances towards her which she explicitly rejected (Motos, 1998). Consequently, Jones reported she suffered adverse employment action by her superiors, who “treated her rudely and changed her job responsibilities” (Motos, 1998).
The governor of

Arkansas during the time and Jones’ alleged offender was former President of the United States of America, William Jefferson Clinton. Subsequently, over a year later following the incident, Governor Clinton was elected the 42nd President, in November 1992.
On May 6, 1994, Jones filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against President Clinton and another defendant (Motos, 1998).
President Clinton pushes back. In his response to the complaint, Clinton informed the district court that he will “file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of Presidential immunity available to him from the constitution (Motos, 1998).” He also requested that all other pleadings and motions be “deferred pending resolution of the immunity issue (Motos, 1998).”
This paper will explore the constitutionality of Presidential immunity in matters that occurred prior to the presidency. This is essential to dissect and determine because the job of the president and the executive branch is such a precarious one. Hence, the president must have immunity to act effectively within the executive branch.
Thus, citizens expect their commander in chief to uphold a high level of morality and to maintain a steadfast grasp of constitutionality. Ultimately, the President’s constitutional immunity right should not infringe on another’s constitutional right to equal protection of law, and due process from the Fifth Amendment.
What is Presidential Immunity?
Presidential immunity protects the President from civil liability for official acts committed as President (New York Times, 1997). The overall intention of Presidential immunity is to allow the President to govern effectively and make prudent decisions for the country without the fear of indictment.
It is important for citizens to feel their President will make decisions that allows them to feel safe. Presidential immunity provides a shield for the President. Thus, allowing the President the flexibility, authority, and allowance to make solid decisions on behalf of the country.
The Tensions Presidential Immunity
“The King can do no wrong (Chang, 2007).” Arguably, ancient governments ruled by royalty can be seen as the early pioneers of immunity to its king. Now, in modern times the essence of a democratic society and government does not allow for anyone to be above the law (Chang, 2007).
Here is the basis of one of the tensions of Presidential immunity. A sitting President should be exempt from adhering to the very law of the land in which they are sworn in to uphold. The executive branch of government is only bestowed upon one individual—the President (Chang, 2007). The other two branches of the government that consist of many different individuals. Although the President is an individual, the President is treated as an equal branch of the government.
As a result of the unique dynamics of the President’s role to the executive office abstention of personal liability is needed. More tension forms with regards to separation of powers. It seems to offer adequate justification and solid ground for immunity for the President. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Presidential immunity is only allowed for the President for acts within the capacity of the office (Chang, 2007).
The Case: Clinton Vs Jones
As described in the introduction of this paper Jones filed a complaint against President Clinton for his prior actions when he was the Arkansas governor.

Detailed Background of the Case
Paula Corbin claimed that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton (OYEZ, n.d.) Jones states that she rejected and denied the then Governor Clinton’s advances.
Consequently, Jones reported she suffered adverse employment action by her superiors, who “treated her rudely and changed her job responsibilities” (Motos, 1998).
However according to Jones, the incident did not end with Clinton’s presidency; there were lingering effects. She claimed that once Clinton became the President, she was defamed by various person authorized to speak for President Clinton, who denied that the incident ever occurred and branded her a liar (Motos, 1998).
In order to seek justice for her perceived loss, Jones filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against President Clinton and another defendant in 1994 (Motos,

1998).
The Merits of Paula Corbin Jones Complaint
Essentially, the construction of Jones’ complaint divided into four counts: 1, Deprivation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; 2, Intentional deprivation of rights; 3, Conspiracy; and finally 4, Defamation.
Firstly, Jones claimed Clinton violated her constitutional rights. Moreover Clinton, “acting under the color of state law,” deprived her of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process (Motos, 1998).
Next, Jones asserted that the then governor and subsequent President Clinton, along with another named defendant in the complaint conspired to violate her constitutional rights. Basically the two defendants knowingly set forth planned actions to violate Jones’ rights.
Thirdly, Jones alleged that both named defendants intentionally caused her emotional stress (Motos, 1998). Furthermore, Jones maintained that their actions were malicious and done on purpose to cause her harm.
Finally, the last count from the complaint was that both named defendants continuously defamed her publicly throughout Clinton’s governorship. Thus, the defamation and harassment continued after the Governor’s successful election to President. Additionally, authorized representatives of the President participated in the public defamation of Jones (Motos, 1998).
President Clinton’s Response
President Clinton contends that as a sitting President that he is protected by Presidential immunity. Furthermore, that proceeding with Jones complaint would violate the Separation of Powers clause (OYEZ, n.d.).
The Eighth District Court of Arkansas Ruling
Initially the Eighth District Judge denied President Clinton’s “total” immunity request (OYEZ, n.d.). However, the judge granted an order of stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton's Presidency.
Later on appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity (OYEZ, n.d.).
The Supreme Court’s Decision and Rationale
The question the court had to discern, “is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office (OYEZ, n.d.)?”
Ultimately the answer is no. The Court unanimously held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances (OYEZ, n.d.).
Although the Court noted the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive Branch, its opinion is, “that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process (OYEZ, n.d.).”
Lastly, the court held, “while the independence of the government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another (OYEZ, n.d.).”
Unfortunate for President Clinton, as discussed in an earlier section of this paper the Court decided that Presidential immunity is only to protect a President from civil liability while working in the capacity of the presidency. It does not overlap with actions performed before the President takes office. Also, the Court recognizes the delicate balance of Separation of Powers, yet it does not automatically negate the President from liability of a lawful civil litigation.
How to Improve Presidential Immunity
Most reasonable people would agree that the greater good outweighs the individual’s desire for justice. The law that immunes a sitting president from prosecution though imperfect protects the country and its citizens (Chang, 2007). The reputation us the United States abroad depends on the strength of this law. Trivial legislations would distract the president from concentrating on the important duties of the executive branch, and acting as the commander and chief of the military. The most significant change to the current laws is to change it to a deferred prosecution rather than immunity from prosecution.
A leader leads by example therefore people look to the president as a model of lawful, ethical behavior. It is vital the integrity of the presidential office that chief executive officer abides by the law, and if he or she abuses the authority bestowed upon them, there are severe consequences (New York Times, 1997). If a sitting president performs his duties within the boundaries of the constitution, he or she can comfortably retire without fear of deferred prosecution. The deferred prosecution gives a sitting president an incentive to obey the law and to avoid behavior that is selfish and criminal.
Easing the Tension Surrounding Presidential Immunity
The deferred prosecution must have rigorous standards to indict a President after he or she completes their term of service (Chang, 2007). The high standards are to guard the former president and the executive office from malicious prosecutions. The government is designed with checks and balances to avoid an elitist ruling authoritative government that serves only those in power. The United States is built on the Ideal that the people as whole can best decide what is just rather than a wealthy self-serving few. The law that provides immunity for sitting president though necessary best serves the president and the corporations that sponsored his her campaigns. Therefore, it is easy for the elected official may act as if they are above the law. An average citizen who works hard and without a team of lawyers should have the same level of scrutiny as the United States rather than a higher standard.
Conclusion
Institutions such as government must be fair and just to remain viable. A government of the people and by the people must treat everyone equal under the law. The changes proposed in this paper seek to move our government closer to the previously mentioned goal. The constitution is in a constant state of change as humanity is in a constant state of evolution. A leader should seek to inspire those who are watching by holding themselves to the same standards they impose on the population. People aspire to behave like the people they most admire. Most people resent hypocrisy and lose hope in a leader they view as a hypocrite.
It is up to the people that live in a government of the people, by the people to improve laws, so they better serve the people. Laws should prevent chaos, promote harmony, and move us to an ideal society.