"High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Glitch said:

The phrase "...treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" in the US Constitution refers specifically to criminal acts.

Click to expand...

The whole point of this thread is to demonstrate that this formulation is simply wrong. Always has been. The rest of your points fail as a result of the faulty premise.

Earlier, you also misdescribed the process of impeachment. This genuinely is more of a quibble than a complaint, as I had missed your previous post until now.

Glitch said:

The House has sole authority over impeachments, and only requires a simple majority. The Senate has sole authority over impeachment trials, and requires a two-thirds majority to convict on at least one Article of Impeachment.
...
There is absolutely nothing the President can do with regard to impeachments.

Click to expand...

So far, so good. But then you asserted that "A conviction means the President is removed from office, and becomes an ordinary unemployed citizen." That is not correct. A President cannot be removed absent conviction, but conviction does not require removal. That is a separate consideration, as is debarment from future office.

Recognizing that most of the rest of your post was overcome by events (posted before the articles were transmitted to the Senate), and strays a bit from the topic, I don't want to belabor it, but I have a hard time imagining articles of impeachment never being transmitted to the Senate or the Senate not acting upon them (or at least pretending to). Certainly the Senate failing to act on articles of impeachment would not result in a President's removal, but your assertion that "If there is no Senate vote on at least one Article of Impeachment, either to acquit or convict, then like all other legislation passed by the House and not voted on by the Senate, it vanishes into oblivion and ceases to exist" - is decidedly wrong. This is not like other legislation. It rests on a separate constitutional foundation. On impeachment, the House acts alone, in a plenary fashion. Once the act is done, it is complete. There are no "takesy-backsies". Trump does not become "unimpeached". Nor is the House limited, legally or constitutionally, to one act of impeachment (something the President should keep in mind). No, Trump has been impeached, just like Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and numerous judges have been. He has not yet been convicted, but that is a different matter for a different thread.

NWRatCon said:

. That is the kind of discussion I come here to engage in. Unfortunately, it is rare. I'll have more specifics later. Life intrudes.

Click to expand...

Same here - I yearn for respectful exchange of ideas - I am not skilled in law - I have no basis for anything I say beyond my common sense and my sense of fairness.

Outside the realm of aerospace engineering or photography I have limited technical skills.

My life has been dedicated to UNDERSTANDING important arguments to whatever extent I can.

Looking forward to further discussion.

I promised to come back to your post, so here goes:

Rokkitsci said:

Any action taken by a POTUS that warrants his immediate removal from office absolutely MUST be something that represents an IMMEDIATE threat to the nation. I cannot be some trivial action that can be made to 'resemble' a bad sounding charge which, if continued, could eventually cause some degree of disappointment in the political ambitions of a purely political faction, with NO recognition of a problem by anyone other than the potentially future political outcomes.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree, and so did the framers.

Rokkitsci said:

What we are experiencing here is a purely political tactic.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly disagree, and so would the framers. (Without getting too far afield, there is a separate thread that addresses this concept: Impeachment as a non-partisan action.)

Ultimately, the processes of impeachment are "political" and were intended to be. Importantly, what the framers meant by that is different than we mean it today.

They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Sorry, this posted prematurely. That quote is from Federalist 65.

NWRatCon said:

I promised to come back to your post, so here goes:I wholeheartedly agree, and so did the framers.

I wholeheartedly disagree, and so would the framers. (Without getting too far afield, there is a separate thread that addresses this concept: Impeachment as a non-partisan action.)

Ultimately, the processes of impeachment are "political" and were intended to be. Importantly, what the framers meant by that is different than we mean it today.Sorry, this posted prematurely. That quote is from Federalist 65.

Click to expand...

Little unsure of the 'disagreement" = except perhaps with the semantics.

My opinion is that the framers gave us this 'nuclear bomb' to be used as a weapon of last resort - and relied on the integrity of our leaders to choose wisely - The passage you quoted - to me - supports the notion that they were warning us of their fears of misuse for strictly partisan objectives by those with no concern about the precedent they set.

Looking forward to other exchanges - I am arch conservative in my views based on my 81 years of life experiences and holding firm to principles based on fundamental fairness and integrity.

Rokkitsci said:

Little unsure of the 'disagreement" = except perhaps with the semantics.

My opinion is that the framers gave us this 'nuclear bomb' to be used as a weapon of last resort - and relied on the integrity of our leaders to choose wisely - The passage you quoted - to me - supports the notion that they were warning us of their fears of misuse for strictly partisan objectives by those with no concern about the precedent they set.

Looking forward to other exchanges - I am arch conservative in my views based on my 81 years of life experiences and holding firm to principles based on fundamental fairness and integrity.

Click to expand...

Laying my cards on the table, I have described myself as a "recovering conservative", having started my adult life in a significantly different circumstance/viewpoint than I occupy today. But then, a conservatism based on fairness and integrity is to be admired. Would that that described what passes for self-defined "conservatism" today. I have watched the ideals of rationality, fairness and integrity successively purged from the Republican party of my youth through the presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and now Trump, so that the party of today is a caricature of conservatism, possessing none of those qualities.

I have come to this impeachment process as a well-informed observer with a background in history and law with a particular emphasis on constitutional history. I'm not unbiased, to the extent that integrity, consistency, fairness and adherence to the law and social standards inform that bias, and I am intolerant of hyperpartisan bloviating of any kind. That is why I tend to start threads that focus on discrete concepts of law and procedure, and avoid those that are initiated as troll friendly magnets. I am generally anti-party, but have had membership in both major parties and supported candidates that share my values.

I am, literally, a card- carrying member of tha greatly misunderstood American Civil Liberties Union, as it is the embodiment of "American values" as I see them. The disagreement, as it exists is perhaps tied to the semantic use of the term "political" in these discussions. As a political science undergrad, I view politics as the expression of the will of the people, not adherence to a party platform or interest - indeed, I generally find blind obedience to party dogma anathema to rational approaches to a sound public policy. A view, I'll note, that I share with Alexander Hamilton.

I do not, however, view impeachment as a nuclear bomb, but as a necessary corrective. The framers were well aware that the selection process could result in inappropriate people being elevated to positions of great authority, and were cognizant of, and worried about, the development of factions that could undermine the Republican nature of our union. Many of them warned about it. They felt that elevating the responsibility to the Senate would counteract that tendency. Alas, in that they were quite mistaken. I'm certain that they underappreciated the sway of faction and would be appalled at the abuses of the current majority leader in appointments, elections and now impeachment.

What the corrective is, at this juncture, I'm not convinced, but this is certainly not a good reflection of how a democratic republic is supposed to operate.

Laying my cards on the table, I have described myself as a "recovering conservative", having started my adult life in a significantly different circumstance/viewpoint than I occupy today. But then, a conservatism based on fairness and integrity is to be admired. Would that that described what passes for self-defined "conservatism" today. I have watched the ideals of rationality, fairness and integrity successively purged from the Republican party of my youth through the presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and now Trump, so that the party of today is a caricature of conservatism, possessing none of those qualities.

Click to expand...

You may be the answer to my twenty+ year quest for a reasonable argumentative opponent = I started in the old AOL days of "the Great Debate" and have wandered among many political boards looking for reasoned discussion with very little satisfaction.

I am going to be unable to devote much time for the rest of the week - but I'd like to get back with you on some limited topics at your convenience. - Limited in order to concentrate on things that can be discussed without diversion from the wide scope of conservative/progressive differences. I have no academic credentials for finance - law - political science - medical or any other scientific topics other than undergrad physics and electrical engineering (BSEE) and aerospace engineering (30+yrs). No advanced degrees. I am confident in my ability to recognize legitimate arguments even in areas where my expertise is at an academic disadvantage.
Here are the elements I require for sustained discussion:
- good faith
- consistency in principle
- instinctive fairness
- basic logic
- occasional humor.

Here are some suggested topics
- constitution in general = original textual meanings or modern interpretations
- allowable degree of hypocrisy in campaign tactics and governmental debates
- 'social justice' = as in 'what does this mean?'
- capitalism vs socialism
- border security
- educational institutions
- freedom of speech = e.g. 'hate' speech - micro aggressions -
- racism

etc - these just off the top of my head - any topic welcome - If I think I am unqualified to express an opinion I am not ashamed to admit it - don't want to waste anyone's time.

Have a great day.

Rokkitsci said:

the party of today is a caricature of conservatism, possessing none of those qualities.

Click to expand...

Trump is, broadly speaking, for family, religion, strict constitutionalism, capitalism, strong military, and limited govt. Dims are now open communists so Republicans are by comparison the second coming. Hopefully the Republicans can be more purified in the post Trump era. NOw do you understand?

James972 said:

Trump is, broadly speaking, for family, religion, strict constitutionalism, capitalism, strong military, and limited govt. Dims are now open communists so Republicans are by comparison the second coming. Hopefully the Republicans can be more purified in the post Trump era. NOw do you understand?

Click to expand...

Trump is hardly for "strict constitutionalism" considering he seeks to intentionally violate it:

Trump clashes with Republicans in gun control meeting

I would be willing to wager that Trump has never read the US Constitution, since he not only seeks to violate the Second Amendment but also the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as well. But we knew that would be the case from the very beginning since Trump was a registered Democrat the overwhelming majority of his life. He only became a Republican in 2012 so he could run for President in 2016, and millions of idiot voters believed Trump was a Republican.

Glitch said:

Trump is hardly for "strict constitutionalism" considering he seeks to intentionally violate it:

Click to expand...

Trump is best of all time with two great Supreme Court appointments and the possibility of 2 more should he be reelected.

Glitch said:

millions of idiot voters believed Trump was a Republican.

Click to expand...

He is, compared to Democrats who are now open communists supporting Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution! Do you understand?

Mr Person said:

That is indeed how they intended it. But since they didn't provide judicial review for conviction on articles of impeachment, a president can be impeached for having an annoying face just so long as enough votes are there.

Click to expand...

Or orange hair.

Mr Person said:

That is indeed how they intended it. But since they didn't provide judicial review for conviction on articles of impeachment, a president can be impeached for having an annoying face just so long as enough votes are there.

Click to expand...

Not really since it has to be for treason bribery or similar. If it was for orange hair he or anyone could contest it as unconstitutional and create a true crisis in America. Dims are low enough and hateful enough to do this since they badly want the Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution so badly! Imagine that?? Treasonous Dims could bring down our country by laying with the impeachment power!!

Mr Person said:

That is indeed how they intended it. But since they didn't provide judicial review for conviction on articles of impeachment, a president can be impeached for having an annoying face just so long as enough votes are there.

Click to expand...

James972 said:

Not really since it has to be for treason bribery or similar.If it was for orange hair he or anyone could contest it as unconstitutional and create a true crisis in America.

Click to expand...

What I said was 100% accurate. You are either lying or clueless. Then again you're the guy who doesn't realize how completely stupid it is to start four threads claiming that "liberalism" is "unconstitutional."

Bye.

Mr Person said:

What I said was 100% accurate.

Click to expand...

wrong!! it would be 100% unconstitutional to start removing presidents for hair color or dress style. Nobody in his right mind would support this.

James972 said:

Trump is best of all time with two great Supreme Court appointments and the possibility of 2 more should he be reelected.

Click to expand...

The jury is still out on justice Kavanaugh. Lets not forget that Reagan appointed Kennedy and Ginsburg and they are not exactly conservative, by a long shot. So far Gorsuch has agreed with Justice Thomas on 37 out of 40 cases, which is a very good sign since it is well established that Justice Thomas is a conservative originalist. On that basis alone I would say Gorsuch is a conservative originalist. There are fewer decisions for Kavanaugh, although his ruling against Net Neutrality by the FCC was spot on. He appears to be a proponent of Free Speech and Fourth Amendment, but he needs to make more decisions before anything conclusive can be determined.

James972 said:

He is, compared to Democrats who are now open communists supporting Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution! Do you understand?

Click to expand...

Trump has been a member of the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, and now the Republican Party. He is all over the map. Nobody knows his ideology because other than himself, he doesn't have one. One minute he is a die-hard conservative, the very next minute he is a communist fascist. Trump is politically schizophrenic.

Glitch said:

Trump has been a member of the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, and now the Republican Party. He is all over the map. Nobody knows his ideology because other than himself, he doesn't have one. One minute he is a die-hard conservative, the very next minute he is a communist fascist. Trump is politically schizophrenic.

Click to expand...

not at all, conservatives love him for cutting taxes and regulations, supreme court, killing obamacommiecare etc. Did you notice that liberals despise him???

James972 said:

not at all, conservatives love him for cutting taxes and regulations, supreme court, killing obamacommiecare etc. Did you notice that liberals despise him???

Click to expand...

Those conservatives are morons then, because Trump didn't cut taxes. Congress did. Trump also didn't kill ObamaCare (as he promised), only Congress can do that. Did you notice that Trump makes promises that only Congress can keep? We are even still part of the Paris Accords. Trump hasn't kept any of his promises, but that doesn't matter since voters are civically illiterate and wouldn't know if he kept his promises or not because they have no clue how their own government functions.

NWRatCon said:

I sometimes get so frustrated I have to get all pedantic! This is one of those times.

There seem to be two extremes that motivate people's opinions on the subject of impeachment, and both are wrong: "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", as used in the Constitution does not imply the use of criminal standards, either to initiate impeachment or to remove an officer from office; nor is it a "purely political" decision, as is often argued. Rather it is a long-established and thoroughly sourced concept based upon the precept that "High" officials hold a position of public trust that requires higher standards of behavior and decorum than the ordinary person. "It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons." Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Jon Roland, Constitution Society), or, Alexander Hamilton put it, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

"The framers sought to create a responsible though strong executive; they hoped, in the words of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, that 'the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief Magistrate could do [no] wrong.'" (WaPo, Watergate Docs from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.) "[T]he framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of government conferred upon the President and other civil officers, and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive departments." If it is not clear from this history that Impeachment is not a criminal process, all doubt is removed by the language of the Constitution itself: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law." Art. I, Section 3. This was the understanding as well of Justice Joseph Storey in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) (Emphasis mine).

Impeachment is a separate act from criminal conviction, and the rules that apply are necessarily different for a reason. Impeachment cannot be by the whim of the Congress, but is also not constrained by the limits of judicial determination of criminality.

Click to expand...

And thus since it is not a criminal standard then no standard for a "criminal" trial exist. No rules, no guidelines, and no witnesses during the Trial stage. Witnesses were heard in the inquiry phase. You can't have it both ways, it is based on our judicial court system or it isn't, it is about a crime or it isn't. You don't get to make it up as you go. The impeachment portion of the Constitution is not well explained in the text and this is the problem. The founders left it too open but the rules they gave said the House shall impeach, the Senate shall try/judge. It didn't go the way of the demorats, not get over it.

Glitch said:

Those conservatives are morons then, because Trump didn't cut taxes.

Click to expand...

he did compared to what Dims propose in Green New Deal Second Great Depression and Communist Revolution!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand now?

Glitch said:

Did you notice that Trump makes promises that only Congress can keep?

Click to expand...

All presidents do that!! Green New Deal is nothing without Congress. You are truly in kindergarten.

Integrityrespec said:

And thus since it is not a criminal standard then no standard for a "criminal" trial exist. No rules, no guidelines, and no witnesses during the Trial stage. Witnesses were heard in the inquiry phase. You can't have it both ways, it is based on our judicial court system or it isn't, it is about a crime or it isn't. You don't get to make it up as you go. The impeachment portion of the Constitution is not well explained in the text and this is the problem. The founders left it too open but the rules they gave said the House shall impeach, the Senate shall try/judge. It didn't go the way of the demorats, not get over it.

Click to expand...

Actually, the US Constitution is very specific. Presidents can only be impeached on the basis of either committing "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Since the US Constitution specifically requires a crime to be specified, and none were in the Articles of Impeachment against Trump, those Articles of Impeachment become illegal. Which makes this farce of an impeachment a failed coup attempt by the Democratic Party.

Integrityrespec said:

The founders left it too open

Click to expand...

not really. they didn't say treason bribery other crimes and misdemeanors or anything else so Congress can gain absolute power over other 2 branches!!

James972 said:

All presidents do that!! Green New Deal is nothing without Congress. You are truly in kindergarten.

Click to expand...

All candidates do that because they know the American voter is as stupid as a rock when it comes to comprehending their own government. The stupid voter actually believes Trump can repeal ObamaCare without Congress. The moronic voters actually believes Trump can build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. The American voter is as stupid as they come. How do you think Trump got elected in the first place?

Glitch said:

The American voter is as stupid as they come. How do you think Trump got elected in the first place?

Click to expand...

this is why our founders and modern Republicans want to limit the electorate and why Democrats want the opposite ie to register prisoners and children. Their free stuff philosophy is custom made for children and adults as dumb s children.