Replies

ROTF! The must be some dim playbook they all read out of and share. Masters of doublespeak, one and all.

For what it's worth, "high crimes" refer to felonies. A plain reading of the Constitution notes the distinction between "high crimes" & misdemeanors.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6^th ed., (1856) notes, '[t]he offences for which a guilty officer may be impeached are, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'

James Madison stated, "A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

In 1970, during an attempt to impeach Supreme Court justice William O. Douglass, House Minority leader (and future President) Gerald Ford stated that 'an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'

In 1974, a professor of law stated it thusly,

'I think that the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. Another factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands. Law and order, for example.'

The professor's name? William J. Clinton, associate professor at the University of Arkansas.

Where did you come up with that wonderful skewer of Slick? That is a great, and fully dispositive, quote of his definition of impeachability. He was, of course, thinking of Richard Nixon.

I wish someone had read that out during his impeachment trial.

For what it's worth, "high crimes" refer to felonies. A plain reading of the Constitution notes the distinction between "high crimes" & misdemeanors.

Actually a "plain language" interpretation of the legal contruct Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors , would treat the listed offenses all as members of the 'same kind' [ejusdem generis]. Since treason and bribery are commonly considered to be crimes against the state, "plain language" argues that the rest of the list should likewise be considered that way.

One of several restrictive interpretations, "plain language" interpretation of Article 2 Section 4. might exclude offenses of a personal nature, such as lying about and covering up adultery, which while offensive do not meet the definition of 'state' crimes.

Of course pointing this out will immediately be construed as a defense of Bill Clinton [as opposed to the Constitution itself, or the Office of the President], which automatically disqualifies it from consideration, and labels the person raising the argument a godless commie. But then that is what passes for 'series' debate on this forum.

In 1970, during an attempt to impeach Supreme Court justice William O. Douglass, House Minority leader (and future President) Gerald Ford stated that 'an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.'

Probably the most accurate observation on the entire process