• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,767
Reaction score
23,379
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)
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.
(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.
 
I was hoping for a little more substance and discussion than that. ;)

An off day for me.

Ultimately, it is purely political. Were it criminal, it wouldn't be in congress. Congress can indict for any "high crime" they imagine including loss of public trust. The only thing on the line is everyone's reputation and that's how it's supposed to be. If the representatives of the people act in an egregious manner, they will be replaced. And it's their duty to dismiss a problem President for any reason.
 
Last edited:
False. The only thing at stake are reputations.

Agreed. The quoted bit in the OP makes it quite clear that "high crime and misdemeanors" was intended to be highly subjective.

It seems like its up to the congress to determine what passes the test to impeach.

If it doesn't convince 2/3rds, then it fails.
 
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.

^ The bizarro world view. Up is down, left is right, poor is rich... In the Constitution every word means whatever each person wants it to. For example "We the People" means "We the people of Latin America" to the Democratic Party. The right to "due process" means "no legal rights of any kind."

To the OPer, "crime" doesn't mean "crime" and "misdemeanor" doesn't mean "misdemeanor." Rather, according to the OP message, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "a majority of members in the House Of Representatives are in the opposite political party from the president."
 
Agreed. The quoted bit in the OP makes it quite clear that "high crime and misdemeanors" was intended to be highly subjective.

It seems like its up to the congress to determine what passes the test to impeach.

If it doesn't convince 2/3rds, then it fails.

I'm going to take issue with that. It requires more than a subjective "feeling", or is intended to. Although I agree that "reputation" is a significant limiter. It is important to distinguish, though, impeachment versus removal. The process of investigation for impeachment may persuade some that their reputations will be more hurt by inaction than action.
 
I ... criminality.
If a Congress decided to engage in impeachment for offenses which did not seem to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, what recourse would the PotUS have?
Could congress carry out the impeachment?
Or is there some mechanism which would halt the impeachment process Congress decided to initiate?

Is there someone or some mechanism which can prevent, undo, or overrule an impeachment Congress decides to enact?

If Congress is the final word [except for the voters' subsequent retaliatory actions], then despite w/e definitions and explanations exist for the terms high crimes etc., it would seem that pragmatically, political will alone could be theoretically sufficient for an impeachment to occur.
 
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.

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.
 
I'm going to take issue with that. It requires more than a subjective "feeling", or is intended to. Although I agree that "reputation" is a significant limiter. It is important to distinguish, though, impeachment versus removal. The process of investigation for impeachment may persuade some that their reputations will be more hurt by inaction than action.

Yeah, I don't much care about the reputation angle, though I expect some in congress do.

You provided in your OP (the quote) the strongest argument I've seen so far. I had actually requested something like that in a similar thread recently.

Subjective is subjective. It will be "enough" for some and not enough for others. The voting in Congress determines the outcome.

The more substance the "crime or misdemeanor" has the more convincing it is, and presumably the likelihood of a passing vote.

That said, if we can somehow convince 2/3rds of Congress that Trump's should be removed from office because he has a stupid face, then it'll pass and he'll be removed from office.
 
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.

A consensus is forming!
 
If a Congress decided to engage in impeachment for offenses which did not seem to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, what recourse would the PotUS have?
Could congress carry out the impeachment?
Or is there some mechanism which would halt the impeachment process Congress decided to initiate?

Is there someone or some mechanism which can prevent, undo, or overrule an impeachment Congress decides to enact?

If Congress is the final word [except for the voters' subsequent retaliatory actions], then despite w/e definitions and explanations exist for the terms high crimes etc., it would seem that pragmatically, political will alone could be theoretically sufficient for an impeachment to occur.

Okay, you've convinced me. Ultimately, it is a political calculation. But substantively, I think the process was intended to be cumbersome so that it would not be engaged in willy-nilly. Like legislation, treaties and veto overrides, the Constitution put hurdles in the way to make sure actions of such moment were strongly supported.

But the most important understanding, I think, is the appreciation that impeachment is not a criminal process, but one instituted to preserve the Constitution and the constitutional order.
 
If a Congress decided to engage in impeachment for offenses which did not seem to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, what recourse would the PotUS have?
Could congress carry out the impeachment?
Or is there some mechanism which would halt the impeachment process Congress decided to initiate?

Is there someone or some mechanism which can prevent, undo, or overrule an impeachment Congress decides to enact?

If Congress is the final word [except for the voters' subsequent retaliatory actions], then despite w/e definitions and explanations exist for the terms high crimes etc., it would seem that pragmatically, political will alone could be theoretically sufficient for an impeachment to occur.

If a jury wants to convict an innocent person of a non-existent crime the Defendant is charged with and the judge goes along with it on the prosecution's urging, there is nothing to stop them. If the Defendant's attorney disagrees and refuses to testify against his client, he goes to prison too.

This is the criminal justice system the Democratic Party demands for all of us.
 
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.

That is it in a nut shell - Trump can be impeached for tweeting rudely or for exagerating crowd sizes with a simple majority vote in the House. However, for Trump to be removed from office as POTUS requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in the Senate.
 
While I concede that "ultimately" it is a political determination, I agree with friend WillyPete's assertion that "The more substance the "crime or misdemeanor" has the more convincing it is, and presumably the likelihood of a passing vote." That, I think, really is the balance that the framers intended. To think that the determination falls to the conscience of the Senate majority, however, is chilling, indeed. I have not seen a great deal of principle exhibited by that body for decades, and certainly not under the current leadership.
 
If a jury wants to convict an innocent person of a non-existent crime the Defendant is charged with and the judge goes along with it on the prosecution's urging, there is nothing to stop them. If the Defendant's attorney disagrees and refuses to testify against his client, he goes to prison too.
This is the criminal justice system the Democratic Party demands for all of us.

So you say
 
^ The bizarro world view. Up is down, left is right, poor is rich... In the Constitution every word means whatever each person wants it to. For example "We the People" means "We the people of Latin America" to the Democratic Party. The right to "due process" means "no legal rights of any kind."

To the OPer, "crime" doesn't mean "crime" and "misdemeanor" doesn't mean "misdemeanor." Rather, according to the OP message, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "a majority of members in the House Of Representatives are in the opposite political party from the president."

There's a lot of information out there about the term "high....misdemeanor" and it's actually very clear that the term is much broader than criminal conduct. At that time, "misdemeanor" didn't have the same meaning as it does in our current justice system. It was broader than that and meant some kind of identifiable, specific wrongdoing, but that is a much broader term than illegal or criminal.

Just for example, let's say a judge shows up obviously drunk for court every day, slurs his words, cusses out defense and prosecutors, and otherwise fails the basic duty as a competent judge. Of course that person can be impeached, and Congress would have no need to determine if showing up drunk and incapable of doing the important job of a judge was criminal or illegal. The "misdemeanor" is as that term was understood during the founding era was routinely showing up drunk and disgracing his office, undermining trust in the court's decisions, etc. Criminal or not has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
To the OPer, "crime" doesn't mean "crime" and "misdemeanor" doesn't mean "misdemeanor."

This is true though. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was a term of art in use since the 1300s that had to do with abuses of power that weren't always actual crimes.
 
While I concede that "ultimately" it is a political determination, I agree with friend WillyPete's assertion that "The more substance the "crime or misdemeanor" has the more convincing it is, and presumably the likelihood of a passing vote." That, I think, really is the balance that the framers intended. To think that the determination falls to the conscience of the Senate majority, however, is chilling, indeed. I have not seen a great deal of principle exhibited by that body for decades, and certainly not under the current leadership.

Indeed, the framers apparently had a tremendous amount of faith in the members of Congress prudentially using impeachment and for evaluating a claim of impeachment.
 
An off day for me.

Ultimately, it is purely political. Were it criminal, it wouldn't be in congress. Congress can indict for any "high crime" they imagine including loss of public trust. The only thing on the line is everyone's reputation and that's how it's supposed to be. If the representatives of the people act in an egregious manner, they will be replaced. And it's their duty to dismiss a problem President for any reason.

~~~~~~
In the end it's all politically biased.....

https://149366087.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Schiff-Kangaroo-Court.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.

~~~~~~

“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” ~~ John Locke
This is all about the election of a Republican Donald Trump in 2016.
In this particular case, Impeachment of the President has become a POLITICAL ACT.
 
If a Congress decided to engage in impeachment for offenses which did not seem to qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor, what recourse would the PotUS have?
Could congress carry out the impeachment?
Or is there some mechanism which would halt the impeachment process Congress decided to initiate?

Is there someone or some mechanism which can prevent, undo, or overrule an impeachment Congress decides to enact?

If Congress is the final word [except for the voters' subsequent retaliatory actions], then despite w/e definitions and explanations exist for the terms high crimes etc., it would seem that pragmatically, political will alone could be theoretically sufficient for an impeachment to occur.

Very good questions.

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. A conviction means the President is removed from office, and becomes an ordinary unemployed citizen.

There is absolutely nothing the President can do with regard to impeachments. However, there is something the Senate can do in the event the House passes Articles of Impeachment that do not qualify as a high crime or misdemeanors. 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 at midnight on January 3, 2021, the end of the 116th Session of Congress. Assuming Democrats retain control of the House in November's election, they would have to resubmit and vote again on the Articles of Impeachment under the 117th Session of Congress beginning January 4, 2021. If Democrats lost the House next November and the Senate never votes on the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House, then at the end of the session it will be as if the impeachment never happened.

If Speaker Pelosi continues to sit on the Articles of Impeachment passed by the House, and never submits them to the Senate to be voted upon, then it is effectively the same thing as if the Senate never voted. The Articles of Impeachment disappear at the end of the 116th Session of Congress and Trump becomes unimpeached.
 
Last edited:
Okay, you've convinced me. Ultimately, it is a political calculation. But substantively, I think the process was intended to be cumbersome so that it would not be engaged in willy-nilly. Like legislation, treaties and veto overrides, the Constitution put hurdles in the way to make sure actions of such moment were strongly supported.

But the most important understanding, I think, is the appreciation that impeachment is not a criminal process, but one instituted to preserve the Constitution and the constitutional order.

I have been absent from this forum for a number of years - I appreciate your OP - and admit that I have not thought of your definition of "high" in the way you presented it - and have heard no other analysis in that vein - So thank you for the insight.

But the fact the authors followed that with 'crimes and misdemeanors' should indicate there there be some rational definition somewhere that and Impeachment process should identify as having been broached. Jaywalking is a misdeameanor - but even that has a definition somewhere that identifies what action falls into the category of 'jaywalking.' And the concept of "abuse of power" is not a modern construct. IF the authors had felt that something like "abuse of power" were an impeachable offense they would undoubtedly have made some definition of its meaning.

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.

What we are experiencing here is a purely political tactic.

Democrats are not even expecting their 'impeachment' to end with a removal of the POTUS from office - With a mathematical certainty they knew the impeachment would fail on the final vote - even if it were from purely factional passions - as was the impeachment articles themselves. SO - they are USING the awful power of Impeachment (given to them by the founders) to be used ONLY in the case of widespread consensus among the American people that the POTUS must be taken away from the reins of power.

What THIS 'impeachment' represents is an ACTUAL 'abuse of power' - wielding the impeachment sword as a TOOL in an ELECTION CAMPAIGN against not only the POTUS - but, more importantly, CONGRESS members running for election in the upcoming cycle.

The Democrats have a narrow majority in the House of Representatives which allows them access to the fire axe - and they are using that fire ax to beat down the doors of all rooms inhabited by their political opponents.

And THIS clear abuse of constitutional power can only succeed by the supportive advocacy from the National News Media - which is undeniably squelching any rational discussion of the faults of this impeachment process - and is actively advancing the proposition of its importance and supporting evidence - and abrogating their standards of 'journalism' by leaking tidbits of accusatory 'evidnce' every time the Senate exposes fraud of the impeachment articles.

I eagerly look forward to your ideas on these matters.

edit - I note that the last prior input to this thread is dated over a month ago - perhaps it is a dead thead - will look for more recent submission.
 
Last edited:
I thoroughly appreciate your respectful response. That is the kind of discussion I come here to engage in. Unfortunately, it is rare. My interpretation is not unique. In fact, it is the prevailing view. Virtually every impeachment to date has taken that approach, without objection until now.

Let me address where we agree, where we disagree (and why), and I'll avoid what I consider the most partisan points, as I'll explain.
For clarity, I'm going to address your post in chunks.
I have been absent from this forum for a number of years - I appreciate your OP - and admit that I have not thought of your definition of "high" in the way you presented it - and have heard no other analysis in that vein - So thank you for the insight.

But the fact the authors followed that with 'crimes and misdemeanors' should indicate there there be some rational definition somewhere that and Impeachment process should identify as having been broached. Jaywalking is a misdeameanor - but even that has a definition somewhere that identifies what action falls into the category of 'jaywalking.' And the concept of "abuse of power" is not a modern construct. IF the authors had felt that something like "abuse of power" were an impeachable offense they would undoubtedly have made some definition of its meaning.
To be flip, "they did." To be more expansive, I think it is important to look at the times and precedents they relied upon. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had an established meaning at the time the Constitution was drafted. It came from the "common law," the part of English law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutory law, which most of the drafters were quite familiar with. There are a number of places in the Constitution where they used such shortcuts because the words, at the time, had established meanings (e.g. "militia"). The Constitution was not intended to be a legal code, but a framework for governance, so it is not larded with a lot of definitions. When the Constitution was drafted, there was not a "federal code" to rely upon when defining terms, so the framers fell back on the common law terms they, and their peers, were familiar with.

To give you an example: in the vernacular, we describe killing someone intentionally or unintentionally as "murder" or "manslaughter." Those terms come from the common law, not statutes. But, most modern trials rely on statues that codify those terms, identifying "degrees" and specifying punishments. At the time of drafting the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had an established meaning and precedents - it meant "abuse of office". They didn't feel the need to clarify, because it was commonly understood, like "murder" or "manslaughter." (Hamilton addresses this in Federalist 65 & 66.) I'll have more specifics later. Life intrudes.
 
I thoroughly appreciate your respectful response. That is the kind of discussion I come here to engage in. Unfortunately, it is rare. My interpretation is not unique. In fact, it is the prevailing view. Virtually every impeachment to date has taken that approach, without objection until now.

Let me address where we agree, where we disagree (and why), and I'll avoid what I consider the most partisan points, as I'll explain.
For clarity, I'm going to address your post in chunks. To be flip, "they did." To be more expansive, I think it is important to look at the times and precedents they relied upon. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had an established meaning at the time the Constitution was drafted. It came from the "common law," the part of English law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutory law, which most of the drafters were quite familiar with. There are a number of places in the Constitution where they used such shortcuts because the words, at the time, had established meanings (e.g. "militia"). The Constitution was not intended to be a legal code, but a framework for governance, so it is not larded with a lot of definitions. When the Constitution was drafted, there was not a "federal code" to rely upon when defining terms, so the framers fell back on the common law terms they, and their peers, were familiar with.

To give you an example: in the vernacular, we describe killing someone intentionally or unintentionally as "murder" or "manslaughter." Those terms come from the common law, not statutes. But, most modern trials rely on statues that codify those terms, identifying "degrees" and specifying punishments. At the time of drafting the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" had an established meaning and precedents - it meant "abuse of office". They didn't feel the need to clarify, because it was commonly understood, like "murder" or "manslaughter." (Hamilton addresses this in Federalist 65 & 66.) I'll have more specifics later. Life intrudes.

The phrase "...treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" in the US Constitution refers specifically to criminal acts. "High crimes" is just another way to describe felonies, and "misdemeanors" are just another way to describe "low crimes." In either case the US Constitution specifies that a crime must be committed before impeachment can even be contemplated as a remedy. Obstruction of justice is a crime, but abuse of power is not. Abuse of power is a very subjective political assessment. A political party will always accuse their opposition of "abuse of power."

The Articles of Impeachment passed by the House violate the US Constitution since they do not include any crimes and therefore are illegal.
 
Back
Top Bottom