blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Man Harvey youre dense.
Who decides what is impeachable?
The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."
Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."
In our most recent experience with presidential impeachment -- Watergate in 1974 -- the House Judiciary Committee strongly argued that the case for impeachment need not be limited to actual violations of criminal law. In its report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, the Committee argued the definition should go beyond actual breach of law, citing Blackstone's phrase, "an injury to the state or system of government," Justice Joseph Story's phrase, "offenses of a political character," and Edmund Burke's statement at an impeachment trial that the official on trial should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." The Committee further stated that historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
If you would like to read more about it, the following books deal with this timely and controversial topic:
Grand Inquests by Justice William Rehnquist [1992]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Ann Coulter [1998]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson by Gene Smith [1976]
Impeachment: the Constitutional Problem by Raoul Berger [1973]
======================================================
Sorry, youre wrong.
I said it is the House who DETERMINES what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. Learn to read.
As far as opinion polls before the war, Im not going to rehash that yet again. It has been covered ad nauseum. If you honestly think there was not a majority opinion, I cant really help ya. Your memory is cloudy.
And you missed replying, conveniently, to this challenge: lets say for a minute we take your word here. You >>DO<< understand EVERY president and VP has had servicemen/women die in the line of duty whether it be a peacekeeping mission or a skirmish...do you support their conviction of murder also?
Or would you rather cherry pick your murders?
Who decides what is impeachable?
The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."
Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."
In our most recent experience with presidential impeachment -- Watergate in 1974 -- the House Judiciary Committee strongly argued that the case for impeachment need not be limited to actual violations of criminal law. In its report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, the Committee argued the definition should go beyond actual breach of law, citing Blackstone's phrase, "an injury to the state or system of government," Justice Joseph Story's phrase, "offenses of a political character," and Edmund Burke's statement at an impeachment trial that the official on trial should be judged "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." The Committee further stated that historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
If you would like to read more about it, the following books deal with this timely and controversial topic:
Grand Inquests by Justice William Rehnquist [1992]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Ann Coulter [1998]
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson by Gene Smith [1976]
Impeachment: the Constitutional Problem by Raoul Berger [1973]
======================================================
Sorry, youre wrong.
I said it is the House who DETERMINES what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. Learn to read.
As far as opinion polls before the war, Im not going to rehash that yet again. It has been covered ad nauseum. If you honestly think there was not a majority opinion, I cant really help ya. Your memory is cloudy.
And you missed replying, conveniently, to this challenge: lets say for a minute we take your word here. You >>DO<< understand EVERY president and VP has had servicemen/women die in the line of duty whether it be a peacekeeping mission or a skirmish...do you support their conviction of murder also?
Or would you rather cherry pick your murders?
:thumbsup: ? will eliminate the boarder between the US, Mexico and Canada and create the new country called the ?North American Union of Socialist States.? The name of the country will again confuse the left into inaction.
Facebook
Twitter