The difference between "'high' crimes and misdemeanors" and just plain old "crimes and misdemeanors", is that the term 'high' distinguishes the type of crimes that may be impeachable. In this sense, 'high' acts as a restriction on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors" and distinguishes that type from other types of crimes.
You don't have to take my word for this however, you can read all about it from the Brigham Young University Federalist Society, who have nicely published a sixty page analysis of the subject.
The Clinton Impeachment and the Constitution: Introduction to the Federalist Society Panel
An exerpt of their comprehensive effort appears below.
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
The perjury count against Clinton was for lying about adultery in a deposition during a civil lawsuit that stemmed from an incident that occurred before he was elected President. This misconduct did not flow from his holding the office of President of the United States, in fact one could argue that the civil suit for sexual harassment was brought against him only because he was POTUS.
It should become quite clear to someone who is even mildly objective, that were some serious constitutional questions about whether Clinton's crimes should be considered 'high' or 'petit'. I would further argue that recent events involving the plaintiff in that case make the 'petitness' of the misconduct even more apparent.
Not so with Blackstone! Blackstone did not regularly use the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which as I noted previously comes from a 1386 case. INSTEAD he used the term "crimes and misdemeanors," "high misdemeanors," and "offences against public justice," among other things. Thus to suggest that he was making a distinction between the qualifier "high," when in fact he did not even use it in the form you describe, is a falsehood.
In this sense, 'high' acts as a restriction on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors" and distinguishes that type from other types of crimes.
Again, not so with Blackstone. Blackstone did not use any such restriction. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not inherently qualified but rather a legal term of art taken from the 1386 case. Blackstone developed and used his own terms of art to reference the same concept. The framers simply chose to use the former of the two.
You don't have to take my word for this however, you can read all about it from the Brigham Young University Federalist Society, who have nicely published a sixty page analysis of the subject.
Thanks but no thanks. I prefer not to employ the crutch of a second hand appeal to authority when I may easily access the real thing in its original form via Blackstone's commentaries.
Check out garbage_truck's comments in post 1631. Wlat's adoration of Clinton is evidently rubbing off on him. Ole mac is now arguing Clinton's side in impeachment! Witness the apprentice following in his master's footsteps:
"The perjury count against Clinton was for lying about adultery in a deposition during a civil lawsuit that stemmed from an incident that occurred before he was elected President. This misconduct did not flow from his holding the office of President of the United States, in fact one could argue that the civil suit for sexual harassment was brought against him only because he was POTUS. It should become quite clear to someone who is even mildly objective, that were some serious constitutional questions about whether Clinton's crimes should be considered 'high' or 'petit'. I would further argue that recent events involving the plaintiff in that case make the 'petitness' of the misconduct even more apparent." - mac_truck, post #1631