Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina is facing possible impeachment proceedings based on an affair he had with a woman from Argentina. As with President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, it is not the tryst itself that is at issue, but lying about it and, in Sanford's case, using public funds and/or not performing his gubernatorial duties as appropriate. In addition, the governor did not inform the lieutenant governor or others about where he was going or how he could be reached. This research evaluates two articles, one of which supports impeachment and the other which argues against it, and weighs their approach and persuasiveness.
The Charlotte Observer made the case the Sanford should be impeached because he used state and campaign resources for his personal benefit. These acts are unethical, and possibly illegal, according to the paper and meet the admittedly vague criteria of the state constitution regarding impeachment. The constitution itself says that impeachment is to be undertaken in case of "serious crimes or serious misconduct in office" by elected state officials ("Why Gov.," 2009).
The paper maintains that his absence during the summer left the state with no way to get hold of the governor, and that Sanford had deliberately misled his staff and the public as to his intended whereabouts. In addition, the governor is said to have flown the more-expensive business or first class on 18 trips when he should have flown economy class, that he used state aircraft on multiple occasions for personal business, and used campaign money for personal expenses repeatedly. An impeachment trial would give South Carolina the opportunity to weigh his actions against the criteria of the constitution. The article also goes on to cite instances of Sanford's hypocrisy, noting that he supported Clinton's impeachment over the Lewinsky affair and that h
...