I'm not here to argue the merits of the Clinton impeachment, only that opposition to the impeachment on constitutional grounds is NOT a far-left position as you have indicated.
Constitutional scholars may disagree, but the concept of 'high' crimes as consisting of those against the public interest [as opposed to private matters], is well founded in English Common Law. Blackstone himself has written in support of this restrictive interpretation.
Your refusal to acknowlege this simple fact is further evidence of the weakness of your position against McPherson. That you claim to have "researched" the subject before posting your polemic, is, well...laughable.
Sure it is. By its very nature it is a loose constructionist approach, which is in turn inherently left wing. To invoke Blackstone as an argument against perjury's inclusion among "high crimes and misdemeanors" is absurd because Blackstone explicitly included them as "offences against public justice" - the very concept around which the founders based the impeachment power.
Put differently, strict construction means, by definition, reading the constitution's language as originally intended by the founders.
Original intent by the founders in the case of impeachment means Blackstone's commentaries on offences against public justice.
Blackstone said perjury was indisputably an offence against public justice.
That means perjury is a grounds for impeachment
Constitutional scholars may disagree, but the concept of 'high' crimes as consisting of those against the public interest [as opposed to private matters], is well founded in English Common Law. Blackstone himself has written in support of this restrictive interpretation.
Did you not even bother to read the excerpt of Blackstone I provided for you? Blackstone explicitly said that perjury was a public offense - a crime against public justice and the polity of a nation. To suggest otherwise is to ignore Blackstone, and to suggest that Blackstone would not have found perjury impeachable is to LIE.