An affair may not be enough to impeach President Clinton, but could forever change the way politicians are scrutinized, law professors said at a forum in Drinko auditorium Thursday.Four panelists, all professors at the College of Law, addressed various legal, Constitutional and political aspects of what lies ahead for the future of the presidency. Constitutional law professor Edward B. Foley challenged the audience to think about whether lying to the American people is enough for impeachment.Foley made reference to the “that woman” speech Clinton made in January in which he denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He said that the president issued a categorical denial which was meant to be understood by everyone as such, and it was a premeditated falsehood used to deliberately deceive the American public. “The issue is not whether President Clinton technically committed perjury in this statement or that statement, for which he could be sent to jail,” Foley said. He said the issue goes beyond Clinton`s television denial.”The issue is whether the Chief Executive of the United States lied under oath, not once, but repeatedly, and then systematically used the power of his office to perpetuate these lies before the public as well as the judicial process.”If so, does the nation really want to have a president with such utter contempt for the truth and due process of the law?” Foley said.Alan C. Michaels, professor of criminal law and criminal procedure, held a much different view. Michaels gave three arguments why Clinton`s affair and his lying to the American people should not be grounds for impeachment or resignation. He first cited that the intense scrutiny of the personal lives of politicians by the media would be validated, if not at least encouraged.”I think it would discourage good people from serving in public office,” Michaels said. “We`d have even more talking about what they did in college and who they slept with, and less talk about the issues.”He is also concerned that impeachment for such actions would shift power away from the presidency and toward congress.”If doing something immoral is a grounds for being forced from office then I think presidents in the future will be at much greater risk of being forced from office,” he said. “What is immoral in the public`s eyes can easily shift, it doesn`t have the same grounding as what is illegal.”Michaels also believes this could hurt public officials who are politically vulnerable, which defies the system of checks and balances. He also questions whether the investigation might lead people to think that politicians don`t lie.”This is really a political dispute,” he said, “and don`t let anyone get on their high-horse and tell you otherwise.”Sharon L. Davies, who specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure, agreed with some of the points made by both Foley and Michaels, but took her opinion a step further.”It is very disturbing to our country to know that we have a president who is willing to look us in the eye, wag his finger at us and say something to us that is really a bald-faced lie,” Davies said.If we analyze the situation in a series of steps we can come to a better conclusion of whether Clinton`s actions are deserving of impeachment, Davies said. She agrees that if we only look at his decision to engage in improper conduct with the intern we might not think that alone is grounds for impeachment.But if we took a second step and analyzed the fact that the president lied to us on national television, we might come to another conclusion.”When he looked us in the eye, and said that he had not done what in fact he had done, that was a different act on his part,” Davies said. “It went beyond his decision to engage in sexual misconduct to begin with.”Even worse, she said, are the allegations that the president lied under oath before the grand jury. “If those allegations made in the Starr report turn out to be true,” she said, “that`s the third step that might push us over the edge and say that this is in fact impeachable conduct.”Davies emphasized that we must demand that even the president has the statutory obligation to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. “If he`s a federal felon, is that the kind of person that we want as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States,” Davies said.Constitutional law and women`s rights scholar Ruth Colker approached the issue with a feminist`s view. She sees the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky as analogous to a university professor and a student. “I take the view that the president`s responsibility, no matter how bold her sexual overtures, was to say `no,`” Colker said. She expressed concern about the message that this conduct will send to other people who are in a position of authority with unpaid people who are working for quasi-educational experience. The violation of the quasi-educational nature of their relationship is grounds for at least a censure, she said.