- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 26,247
- Reaction score
- 23,920
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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)
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.
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).Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law. They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty.
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.