Posted on 11/15/2019 8:25:02 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Which means we could fight it even if there was a crime.
Who is going to declare that ‘requirement’ hasn’t been met?
> you need to prove “high-crimes and misdemeanors.” <
Right. But the Constitution gives the House complete freedom to define those terms. So the House could quite legally impeach a president for the “crime” of using a swear word. And then it’s off to the Senate for a trial.
And if the president doesn’t like that, I guess he could appeal to the Supreme Court. But I doubt if they would interfere. As I noted earlier, the Constitution gives the House all the power here.
Please see my post #9 as well.
Hey Nick yes it does you asshole!
+100
““High crimes and misdemeanors” is obviously a reference to actual legally-defined _crimes_. I’m open to evidence that the Founding Fathers thought otherwise.”
Well, originally the drafters considered language that the President could be impeached “for Treason, or bribery”. However, this resulted in more debate:
“”The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.
“Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He moved. to add after `bribery’ `or maladministration’. Mr. Gerry seconded him—
“Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
“Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.
“Col. Mason withdrew `maladministration’ & substitutes other high crimes & misdemeanors’(agst. the State’)
“On the question thus altered [the Convention agreed].”
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/27014603-8d4e-4ee2-b5cc-19b81e252abd.pdf
So they never actually defined what they meant by it, but obviously they considered that limiting it a list of a couple actual crimes was too narrow, while “maladministration” was too broad. Saying “high crimes and misdemeanors” was perhaps a compromise, but since they never bothered to define that either, it is functionally equivalent of them saying “maladministration”, since they left it to Congress to decide for themselves what it meant, and of course Congress will decide on whichever definition gives them the most power.
Thus to my point: it’s supposed to be something egregious & articulable, not merely a tool to undo a fair election.
Let's examine the evidence.
> it’s supposed to be something egregious & articulable <
Right. But not necessarily criminal. Founder Benjamin Franklin said that being “obnoxious” was a good enough reason to impeach. A brief discussion about that is here:
That’s fine, he is admitting what is really at the center of most every U.S. Congressionel impeachment of a U.S. President - political motivations.
That is even true of Nixon. Had he wanted to he could have launched DOJ/FBI investigations into Democrat’s spying on his campaign, including moles, prostitues and undercover operations; and exposing the hypocrisy of the central complaint about the Watergate burglers - spying on the opposition. But Nixon didn’t do that; Nixon waa no Trump.
Why impeach Nixon? They had to. He was ending the Vietnam War and opening U.S.-China relations. They had to discredit and overshadow his landslide reelection (60.7% of popular vote, electoral college votes of 49 states) inspite of the Watergate claims. Carter would later win due to the Democrats tarninshing the GOP over Watergate. THAT - politics - was their objective.
The American people are not buying it again.
True, as long as the media reports the proceedings accurately. Clearly, Schiff isn't losing sleep over the possibility of an in-depth CNN expose on his preliminary dealings with the "whistleblower."
What it is “supposed” to be is immaterial unless someone challenges it in court and lets the Supreme Court decide what the language actually means. Until then, it is whatever Congress decides it is.
The Constitution doesn't have a "Definition of Terms" section. There are plenty of terms in the Constitution.. Doesn't mean that the Constitution can be interpreted anyway people choose.
And just because politicians are the jury in an impeachment trial doesn't mean that the jurors aren't bound by the Constitution, which makes it a legal process.
He's wrong.
In your example, if the president moved to Fiji and didn't answer the phone, then he would be in violation of his constitutional oath.
The Constitution is a source of law. Because the Constitution is a source of law, everything that is in violation of it is illegal.
I think we need to stop this Democrat anti constitutional talking point. Impeachment is a legal process.
The law still applies whether their is an enforcement penalty or not.
In this case, it's the voters who potentially could enforce the constitutional requirement by voting out the unconstitutional impeachers.
This "IS" the dimocraptic party yer talkin about. They haven't been this cheesed since Lincoln freed their slaves.
How about 3 days in hiding after an ambassador is murdered?
When everything you do makes your audience think that an illegal act(s) has occurred and must be punished you better have an illegal act(s) to offer up to your audience!
That's not what the Constitution says. It says the president can be impeached for "high crimes or misdemeanors".
Maybe you subscribe to that 'living constitution' thing.
I can’t believe that in a trial as important as an impeachment hearing, something so vulnerable to partisan mischief, the Founders would define-down “high crimes and misdemeanors” to the point that virtually anything would qualify. That is completely counter-intuitive. Would wearing a bolo tie qualify as a “high crime and misdemeanor” because it is “unpresidential”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.