c. 1998 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

UNDATED _ The American presidency is unique in the democratic world. In it the roles of chief of state and chief of government are combined, in a way that has not existed anywhere since the early 19th century.

The president in our system is a limited-term monarch. In other countries the chief of state role is mostly symbolic and ceremonial, whether the chief of state be a monarch as in England or Spain or a president as in Germany and Ireland and Italy and France.

The chief of state, while perhaps possessing political inclinations and a political history, is supposed to be immune from politics. The chief of government, on the other hand, is the premier, prime minister or chancellor and presides over the actual governing of the country.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. But it is important to understand that the American president, whoever it might be, must try to combine two roles which are often different if not opposed.

Moreover, as the ceremonial chief who combines power with symbolism, the president is likely to be the target of animosity neither a king nor a prime minister would normally face.

The framers of our constitution knew what they were doing. They were impressed with the advantages of monarchy, though they did not want a king for their new country. Therefore they created a powerful presidency, subject to re-election every four years. They also made it possible, but very difficult, to remove a president. They had too many memories of what happened in England when religious fanatics deposed and then murdered King Charles I in the previous century.

But the framers did make it possible for an indictment to be voted against a president and that a trial could expel him from office yet made it very difficult by specifying that the indictment be for high crimes _ such as treason or bribery _ which implicitly involved his administration of office, and by requiring a two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate would be needed for conviction and removal.

Clearly they preferred that a president be unseated by the voters of the country instead of by the actions of a runaway parliament like the one which had deposed Charles I.

A partisan, lame-duck Republican Congress, however, has flaunted the intentions of the framers and the Constitution by indicting President Clinton for causes which are not comparable to treason or bribery and which have nothing to do with the exercise of his office. By so doing they have threatened the stability of the office of the presidency.

It appears the Senate will not go along with this assault on the crucial constitutional stability of the presidency. However, it ought to be clear to anyone who knows the Constitution that the Senate still has but two choices _ to convict or to acquit.

Nevertheless, it has been proposed that the Senate adopt a new and utterly extra-constitutional, not to say unconstitutional, alternative _ to censure the president and impose a fine on him.

The fine, of course, would violate the constitutional prohibition of a bill of attainder. But worse, the precedent the Senate would establish with the censure alternative would be utterly devastating to the constitutional stability of the American government.

The House has already established the precedent that it can impeach a president for any reason whatsoever, whether it be a major crime or minor, whether it be in the exercise of office or acts in his personal life. If the Senate should now establish the precedent it can censure and fine a president whenever it wants to, the independence of the executive branch of the government would be shattered.

But the Senate does not have the power to enact a censure. To do so would be a usurpation of power which would be an even graver threat to our constitution than what the House has done.

No matter the cost, everyone, it seems, wants a censure conclusion _ the people, who want this mess over; the Senators, who fear what a long trial might do their political image; Republicans, who see their popularity in free fall; Democrats, still trying to appease the specter of the religious right; and even the president himself, who wants to be free of the yearlong hell of Starrgate.

Clinton, at least, should know better. He should consider not only his own next two years in office, but the future of the presidency. He should make it clear to the Senate that he will not plea bargain away the independence of his office and the office of future presidents.

It should be a choice of up or down for the senate: Either Clinton has committed high crimes of the sort the founders specified and he should be dismissed from office or he has not and he should be acquitted.

The Senate, in the name of haste, should not take a cheap and easy way out _ a way which would be disastrous for the future of American government.

DEA END GREELEY