PERSPECTIVE ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY : We Elect a President to Work for Us; His Problems Can Wait : If Clinton has to answer a politically inspired civil suit, the precedent will doom our most cherished institutions.

Should presidents of the United States be above the law?

Yes--when the case is civil and not criminal.

The civil lawsuit brought against President Clinton by Paula Corbin Jones should not be allowed go to forward. There may be a time for the courts to consider her grievance, but that time is not now. The business of the United States is more important than the concerns of a single citizen.

The issue is not simply Bill Clinton and Paula Jones and their respective fates; the issue is the welfare of this nation, and whether this President--or any President--can govern effectively while he is the subject of a civil matter in the courts.

The nature of the particular issue, in this case a claim for damages from alleged sexual harassment, doesn’t matter; the fact of the lawsuit does.

The media may have a field day with charges involving questionable sexual conduct--and they are--but any civil complaint filed against any President would be the object of intense media focus. The very intensity of that attention, coupled with the time-consuming nature of civil proceedings, means that a President will be required to devote considerable time and energy on his personal legal problems--time and energy he’d otherwise spend on the affairs of state.

There is also the sobering effect of legal costs incurred in responding to a civil suit (it is estimated that Clinton’s may exceed $1 million). A President--like Clinton--lacking a personal fortune will have to find the money somewhere, which raises dicey questions: Should a President allow funds to be raised for his personal legal expenses? To whom will he be indebted?

No President should have to face a legal circumstance of a civil nature that divides his attention, weakens his policies, undermines his leadership and allows his opponents to win in court what they lost in the election.

Politics can be, and often is, a very nasty business. President Kennedy’s comment, “Don’t get mad, get even,” has been widely quoted and just as often ignored. Many people in politics do both--they get very angry and their anger fuels the desire for revenge.

If the Clinton presidency goes down for the political count, the victory of his opponents will be short-lived.

The anger against Jones and particularly against those who are seen as her political manipulators will drown whatever civil discourse is left in American politics and threaten all future presidents.

Only a fool would believe that Jones’ action will be the last of such cases if it can be shown that you can seriously damage a President--if not bring about his removal from office--simply by filing a civil suit.

And the presidency will not be the only institution hurt. The courts will also be affected if they are seen as being a tool of a President’s political opponents.

To spare the presidency, to save our governmental institutions, to keep whatever faith is left in the political process, Congress should pass a law that prohibits the filing of any civil action against an incumbent President. Such legislation should also contain a provision extending the statute of limitations to enable a person desiring to sue to be able to do so once a President is no longer in office. This would allow Jones to still have her day in court.

There is substantial precedence for such a law, based on the proposition that the interest of the state in some specific situations is more important than the interest of a single individual to obtain redress through the courts.

What is at stake is greater than President Clinton’s political future. If Jones and her political masters continue on their vengeful course, the consequences will be ominous for all involved in politics--left or right, Republican or Democrat. The only winners in this dangerous game will be those who hate our republic’s democratic system.