The so-called "constitutional" defense of Clinton's impeachment is a direct endorsement of the loose constructionist position of the constitution and that is an inherently liberal position. You've grown a bit tiresome with your childish rants about McPherson. Here is some information for everyone else interested about the so-called "loose" contructionist interpretation.
Brigham Young University Law Review Archive
I'll exerpt a couple of sections so you'll get the idea.
Impeachment under English law
Proponents of the view that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” implied some abuse of executive power also relied on the understanding of that phrase in founding-era England. Although warning of the hazard of the inference that the framers “meant to transport [English practice] unreformed into their new republic,”25 Sunstein asserted that “the term ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ” under English law was generally understood to represent “a category of political crimes against the state.”26
Put differently, the English practice of impeachment leading up to the founding era suggests that impeachable conduct included “the kind of misconduct that someone could engage in only by virtue of holding public office,” such as unlawful use of public funds, “preventing a political enemy from standing for election,” or “stopping writs of appeal.”27
Joseph Isenbergh reached a similar conclusion, asserting that “[i]n the 18th Century the word ‘high,’ when attached to the word ‘crime’ or ‘misdemeanor,’ describes a crime aiming at the state or the sovereign rather than a private person.”28 In support of this view, Isenbergh asserted that Coke distinguished “high” treason from “petit” treason in that the former was “against the sovereign,” and that Blackstone defined other “high” offenses as those committed “against the king and government.” 29
One assumes here that BYU is not on your black list of left-wing institutes of higher learning, that English Common Law is servicable as a historical legal leit motif to this discussion of American constitutional constructs, and that Wiliam Blackstone might be accepted as an adequate spokesperson for the affirmative, untainted by subversive proletariat leanings.
Given your penchant for santimonious puffery, I doubt you will acknowlege that opposition to the Clinton impeachment on constitutional grounds does not make someone a communist, or a left-winger, or even a Democrat.
However they could be a Marxist, you never know...
You've grown a bit tiresome with your childish rants about McPherson. Surely it is no less tiresome or childish than you have become in your slothful and foolish attempts to deny the gravity and relevance of McPherson's indisputable, extensive, and many connections to the political left and far left.
Here is some information for everyone else interested about the so-called "loose" contructionist interpretation.
Interesting, but inconclusive to the extent that Clinton is concerned. Let's look in particular at what Blackstone himself said on the matter:
"Of Offenses Against Public Justice:
THE order of our distribution will next lead us to take into consideration such crimes and misdemeanors as more especially affect the common-wealth, or public polity of the kingdom: which however, as well as those which are peculiarly pointed against the lives and security of private subjects, are also offenses against the king, as the pater-familias of the nation; to whom it appertains by his regal office to protect the community, and each individual therein, from every degree of injurious violence, by executing those laws, which the people themselves in conjunction with him have enacted; or at least have consented to, by an agreement either expressly made in the persons of their representatives, or by a tacit and implied consent perfumed and proved by immemorial usage.
THE species of crimes, which we have now before us, is subdivided into such a number of inferior and subordinate classes, that it would much exceed the bounds of an elementary treatise, and be insupportably tedious to the reader, were I to examine them all minutely, or with any degree of critical accuracy. I shall therefore confine myself principally to general definitions or descriptions of this great variety of offenses, and to the punishments inflicted by law for each particular offense; with now and then a few incidental observations: referring the student for more particulars to other voluminous authors; who have treated of these subjects with greater precision and more in detail, than is consistent with the plan of these commentaries.
THE crimes and misdemeanors, that more especially affect the common-wealth, may be divided into five species; viz. offenses against public justice, against the public peace, against public trade, against the public health, and against the public police or economy: of each of which we will take a cursory view in their order...
...THE next offense against public justice is when the suit is past its commencement, and come to trial. And that is the crime of willful and corrupt perjury; which is defined by Sir Edward Coke,30 to be a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question."
Or in summary:
Blackstone defines what we now know as "high crimes and misdemeanors" to include "offenses against public justice," or those against the public polity. One of the foremost among these types of offenses is that of perjury (interestingly enough Blackstone also includes on the list the crimes of obstructing justice and subornation of perjury - two other offenses alleged against Clinton). Since the legal system behind the Constitution as understood by the founders was literally centered around Blackstone's commentaries it is a necessary conclusion that the strict construction of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" (which means reading it as the founders knew it, and that is through Blackstone) includes the crime of perjury.