Reply
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
411
Views

411 Views
Message 21 of 29

@ManicProgressive wrote:

Oh, so all the conservatives winseeer they are Constitutional originalists are completely fine with impeachment. 


What is a "winseeer?"  Hic.

 

You are getting sleepy.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
411
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
413
Views

413 Views
Message 22 of 29

Look at what Obama did by engineering "Fast & Furious" where he was supplying guns to the Mexican druglords which ultimately were used to kill many people.  Obama should have definitely been impeached and jailed for that offense.

 

Trump is a piker by comparison by opinions, accusations, and gossip of what he did.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
413
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
420
Views

420 Views
Message 23 of 29

Oh, so all the conservatives who swear they are Constitutional originalists are completely fine with impeachment. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
420
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
414
Views

414 Views
Message 24 of 29

In U.S. Criminal Law, there is a clear definition of a Misdemeanor versus a Felony. That is NOT the case in the Consitution. In addition, what is a high crime (Felony)? That isn't defined either.

 

I also disagree with those who said there must be both high crimes and misdemeanors. How can that possibly be true if neither one is defined?

 

Most scholars agree that high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the House and Senate decide they are.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
414
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
392
Views

392 Views
Message 25 of 29

There are two choices:

 

1. Obey the intent of the law.

 

2. Obey the letter of the law.

 

Often there is a contradiction between the intent and letter of the law because law makers are poor writers.  I have never seen a legal expert explain which choice a US citizen is obligated to follow.  I can't find a clear explanation on the Internet.  And, this speaks to the inadequacy of Civics courses in schools.

 

But, I know that, in a court of law, any ambiguity in a legal contract is interpreted in a way that least favors the person who wrote the contract.  I think that that is a good idea that should also be applied to laws.

 

You are getting sleepy.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
392
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
407
Views

407 Views
Message 26 of 29

Per "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as opposed to "high Crimes or Misdemeanors," both have to be committed. And, if Democrats disagree on the meaning of "and", the Supreme Court can decide.

 

Oh yeah, tie it up in the courts until Trump is out of office.

 

That's what rich guys that don't pay usually do, tie it up in the courts, run the little guy out of money.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
407
Views
Highlighted
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
425
Views

425 Views
Message 27 of 29

@aruzinsky wrote:

"The 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." "

 

Per "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as opposed to "high Crimes or Misdemeanors," both have to be committed.  And, if Democrats disagree on the meaning of "and", the Supreme Court can decid

 


I'm trying to decide how to respond to that but it's just so ridiculous...

 

You know, people, this is the language of Shakespeare, Milton, Shelley, Byron and Keats...

The Gettysburg Address was written in this language, and the I Have a Dream speech resounded from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Fitzgerald, Faulkner and Hemingway wrote in this language. As did Willa Cather, Jane Austin, Elizabeth Barrett Browning and Maya Angelou. Dorothy Parker skewered the world and everything in it in this langauge.

 

This is the language Woodward & Bernstein, Gilbert & Sullivan, Lennon & McCartney, and yes, Abbott and Costello, Lenny Bruce, Laurel & Hardy, The Marx Brothers and Monty Python.

 

The first words spoken on the moon were spoken in this language.

 

You are now going to tell me the writers of the constitution thought "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant a president has to commit both?  Get a grip because you're losing it big time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
425
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
450
Views

450 Views
Message 28 of 29

"The 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." "

 

Per "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as opposed to "high Crimes or Misdemeanors," both have to be committed.  And, if Democrats disagree on the meaning of "and", the Supreme Court can decide.

 

You are getting sleepy.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
450
Views
Highlighted
Recognized Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
421
Views
28
Replies

MISDEMEANOR IS NOT A CRIME--IT IS MISCONDUCT

421 Views
Message 29 of 29

If using the Founding Fathers definition of misdemeanor, Trump could be easily impeached by the Senate: his arsenal of misconduct is legion and legendary:

 

From POLItiCO

 

A central argument of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense is that the articles of impeachment should be dismissed out of hand because the president is not charged with a specific crime—or “criminal like behavior.” Emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has advocated a form of this argument for monthsthough not years—and is expected to make it before the Senate soon.

Dershowitz says his presentation before the Senate will draw on arguments made by Benjamin Curtis during the 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. Curtis asserted, “when the Constitution speaks of ‘treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,’ it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offenses against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done.” The 110-page trial brief submitted by Trump’s legal team this week echoes this assertion, claiming that the “House Democrats’ Made-Up ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard Fails to State an Impeachable Offense Because It Does Not Rest on Violation of an Established Law.” Even though academic experts have rushed to reject this “bogus” argument as “constitutional nonsense,” it still could work, because, as a member of the New York Times editorial board put it, Dershowitz’s argument gives Republican senators an easy way to end the impeachment trial.

Advertisement

 

Previous critiques of the Dershowitz argument have focused on ways Congress has applied the impeachment clause over the past two centuries, impeachment trials before or at the time the Constitution was adopted and statements made by various constitutional framers. Those critiques are all worthy; however, the Dershowitz argument may have a flaw not brought out in any of them, an Achilles heel that one stroke may sever. If we examine the specific words of the Constitution—an analysis perhaps more congenial to Republican senators who praise an “original” approach to interpreting the Constitution—no one seems to be asking why the word “misdemeanor” appears in the list of impeachable offenses. The motion to dismiss may collapse if senators ask the Trump team if they are simply misreading 21st century meaning into the Constitution’s 18th century language.

 

Trump’s defense team seems to take the phrase “Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to mean that a president can be impeached for very serious crimes or less serious crimes. In any case, crimes. Such an interpretation reflects the modern meaning of “misdemeanor” as a petty offense that carries a lesser potential punishment than a felony. But why would the drafters of the Constitution stipulate that impeachment requires commission of a “high” crime if a president could also be removed for the lower bar of a petty crime? The answer may be that “misdemeanor” in the impeachment clause doesn’t refer to any kind of crime.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the oldest meaning of “misdemeanor” is “misconduct.” My review of a very large online database of texts from when the Constitution was drafted and ratified indicates that “misdemeanor” was used both in the sense of “petty crime” and “misconduct,” or “misbehavior,” in the Founding Era.

A 1773 newspaper excerpt from the papers of John Adams contains this quote: “If an office be granted to hold so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he lose it for misbehaviour; for it hath an annexed condition to be forfeited upon misdemeanor, and this by law is annexed to all offices, they being trusts; and misdemeanors in an office is a breach of trust.” (Emphases added.) A 1796 state court decision from South Carolina stated that a judge “is liable for misdemeanors in office, and subject to impeachment for misconduct if he misbehaved.” Notably, both of these examples—in which “misdemeanor” was used interchangeably with “misconduct” or “misbehavior”—refer to removing a public official for cause without any reference to commission of a crime.

In addition, both before and after ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions authorized removal from office using the word “misdemeanor,” again without reference to commission of a crime. The 1776 Constitution of Maryland provided that “the House of Delegates … may expel any member, for a great misdemeanor.” The 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution had an impeachment clause that tracked the U.S. Constitution’s almost word-for-word except that the list of impeachable offenses for state officials is shortened to only misdemeanor: “The governor, and all other civil officers under this commonwealth, shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office.” The 1792 Kentucky Constitution had an impeachment provision virtually identical to that of Pennsylvania.

The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention strongly indicate that one of the most influential framers of the Constitution, James Madison, understood “misdemeanor” as having a different and broader meaning than criminal acts. In the waning days of the convention, on September 8, 1787, Virginia delegate George Mason moved to add “maladministration” to the existing list of impeachable offenses—at that point, only “Treason or Bribery.” Madison objected that “so vague a term [as maladministration] will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” Mason responded by withdrawing his motion and substituting “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” Mason’s revised motion passed 8-3, which is how the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language got into to the Constitution.

The Trump defense team has seized on Mason’s substitution of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for “maladministration” as supporting its contention that impeachment must be based on commission of a crime. However, the story looks quite different if we—literally—turn the page. As reported on the very next page of the records, after Mason’s motion passed, Madison then argued (unsuccessfully) for changing the venue for impeachment trials from the Senate to the Supreme Court, saying that if the president can be impeached “for any act which might be called a misdemesnor [sic]”, the president “under these circumstances was made improperly dependent” on the Senate.

Madison’s statement seems to tell us two things: First, he did not see “misdemeanor” in the amended impeachment clause as a term with well-defined limits, as would be the case if it instead said statutory violations or crimes. Instead Madison suggested that many kinds of acts “might be called” a misdemeanor. Second, Madison saw inclusion of “misdemeanors” in the impeachment clause as giving the Senate greater discretion to remove the president than just the phrase “other High Crimes.” Madison’s motion to move the venue of an impeachment trial from the Senate, where he feared a president’s political opponents could misuse the wide latitude the word “misdemeanor” affords, to an assumed apolitical Supreme Court failed on a 9-2 vote. But the language of what a president can be impeached for remained, leaving the Senate with what Madison considered to be very broad discretion to remove a President for “any act which might be called a misdemeanor.”

In the end, both advocates and opponents of impeachment might be focusing on the wrong word, “crimes.” Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as alleged in the House’s articles of impeachment against Trump—even if not crimes—could well be considered “misdemeanors,” meaning “misconduct,” specifically misconduct in office. This could provide the basis for impeachment and removal. Ironically, it may be that Dershowitz was far more correct 22 years ago than he is today.

schlomo
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
421
Views
28
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

September is Emergency Preparedness month.

Do you have an emergency plan in place?

Share or ask questions today.

Emergency preparedness kit