Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: mac_truck; 4ConservativeJustices
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.

Okay, name a misdemeanor that qualifies as a crime against the State.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the "high" in "high crimes" signifies that it is an official crime, i.e. a crime committed while in office, or using one's official powers. Such as firing the U.S. attorney investigating Madison Guaranty, in order to impede the investigation, or ordering Betty Currie to retrieve a blue dress and a grab-bag box of ties and baubles to impede the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, both of which would be felonies.

1,753 posted on 07/19/2003 3:45:27 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1738 | View Replies ]


To: lentulusgracchus; 4ConservativeJustices
Here is some information about the Constitutional arguments surrounding the Clinton Impeachment:

Brigham Young University Federalist Society

[exerpt]

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

As to what qualifies as a misdemeanor against the state, I have no idea. I'm not here to defend a particualr position, only demonstrate that opposing views of the Clinton impeachment are grounded in a restrictive interpretation of the constitution, and have a basis in English Common Law.

If that is inconvienent to some of you, tough shit.

1,754 posted on 07/19/2003 5:52:22 AM PDT by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1753 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson