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.
Unfortunately, it is YOUR position that is the restrictive one, which is eaasily proven wrong. See below for explanation.
As to what qualifies as a misdemeanor against the state, I have no idea.
The Constitution states, '[t]he President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
It does not state that it shall be for 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and [HIGH] Misdemeanors.' Your reading adds the restriction.
Like I previously stated, a PLAIN reading indicates that 'high crimes' are felonies. The founders explicitly list two treasonable offenses - treason & bribery. They follow that with 'high crimes' and 'misdemeanors.' If high crimes meant only crimes against the state, then that would allow the officers in question to be impeached for ANY misdemeanor, but not for a plethora of felonies not condsidered 'high crimes'. Ludicrous!
At the time of our Constitution & founding, 12 or the 13 existing separate sovereignties knows as states had religious requirements for their elected officials. They were to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. The convention DROPPED the clause, "high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States." I wonder why.
To claim Blackstone as evidence that your hero Clinton's offenses were not impeachable, mac, is a fraud of unspeakable magnitude. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time you knowingly posted lies to support your leftist arguments.
"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." - Blackstone, Commentaries
Well, GOPcapitalist has just shown that his side certainly is, and has.
Like you said, "tough shit".
So nice talking to you.