General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsArticle II, Section 4 of the Constitution. We have it. We need to use it.
I don't see how anybody can argue that the way to remove trump* is contained the 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' section. And, of course, people WILL argue, and I'm not above being educated.
He's abusing his authority, intimidating, misusing assets, and don't get me started on the 'conduct unbecoming'.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,640 posts)Response to Siwsan (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)So, there is that.......
Lonestarblue
(10,011 posts)Plus, we need to hold people accountable for their actions. If Trump walks away with no consequences for his atrocious behavior unbecoming to the office of President, allegiance to a foreign government, violation of the emoluments clause, and trading foreign policy concessions for personal,business gains while in office, then we will have set a new standard of acceptable behavior in a president. Even without the conspiracy with Russia, Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Deciding not to hold impeachment hearings just because a partisan Senate may not convict is tantamount to accepting high crimes and misdemeanors.
cstanleytech
(26,295 posts)After all he is pretty much at the bottom of the toilet bowl already and all he now has is a base or moronic idiots left that support him blindly but he has lost the vast majority of voters that even have a shred of common sense.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)high crimes and misdemeanors so much as it is tantamount to accepting that while windmill tilting might be great for delusional early-17th Century Spaniards it is far less so for a working Congress.
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)aeromanKC
(3,324 posts)For history and precident purposes at the very least. Let there be a trial in the Senate and let them vote after due process has been given.
And this is from just from what we know now!! Heaven knows what there might be after Mueller reports.
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)I can't see him wanting to go through an impeachment hearing. I seriously don't think he's capable.
aeromanKC
(3,324 posts)If he went the Nixon rpute, he would claim that he's a victim. Alford plea crying like a baby. Fake evidence, whaaaaaa fake evidence whaaaaaa
BadgerMom
(2,771 posts)If he could make himself a gigantic martyr, he might do it if a deal had been brokered that resignation would mean no or less punishment.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)The Constitution does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)But, again, that's just my 'think'.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)"High crimes" in common law generally refers to felonies and misdemeanors are - well - misdemeanors. That would suggest that impeachment is appropriate only for criminal conduct. I think that definition too restrictive.
In the end, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means what a majority of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate believe it means.
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,624 posts)High Crimes is a term of old English common law:
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
"High" refers to the office, not the seriousness of the crime or even the fact that a statutory violation is required to impeach.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)At the risk of an ad hominem, I am leery of accepting the legal research of Jon Roland (a "computer specialist" and Libertarian politician) who has advocated for the abolition of paper money and the right of citizens to resist what they believe to be an unlawful arrest.
The Constitution Society, which is a Libertarian and militia supporting organization, is at least equally suspect. The website is good source for the explanation of dangers posed by the "deep state" and right-wing legal theories.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,624 posts)It's on numerous sources:
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt; it meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.[2] The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
"It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[3][4]
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term high crimes and misdemeanors to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of high crimes and misdemeanors were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament, granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[5] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]"
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors
"Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it sayscriminal activityand argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of powerincluding both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary."
Many, many more example on The Google...
kst
(69 posts)Yes, it's an explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means -- but whose explanation?
If there's some reason we should take it seriously, or expect Congress to take it seriously, that's great, but it's not something I've ever seen before. And the President isn't subject to "a lawful order".
Experience has taught me to distrust any information presented as a picture of text with no references.
sl8
(13,787 posts)You can see a watermark or imprint at the top right.
Where they got it from I've no idea.
I'm guessing they wouldn't mind misleading some people into thinking it's from the Constitution.
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)But, if it is the explanation, I'm not sure why it matters who scripted it. I just don't have the time and energy for that kind of minutia. If you do, more power to you.
kst
(69 posts)But the point is that it isn't the explanation. As far as I can tell, it's just somebody's made-up description of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, with no real legal or Constitutional basis. (And the use of quotation marks in the image seems designed to fool readers into thinking that it's the real definition.)
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)kst
(69 posts)Sure, you could look it up. But the image seems designed to deceive the majority of people who won't bother.
And you don't have a problem with that?
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)The graphic makes it look like part of the text. It isnt. There is no constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)Impeach AND indict!
BumRushDaShow
(129,096 posts)Section 4.
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Not that second paragraph as noted in the above post.
ETA - the bigger issue is that "impeachment" is only one part (basically an indictment done by the House). The trial and "removal" happens in the Senate and that doesn't seem to be do-able (at least at this moment).
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)But, apparently they aren't concerned about such trivial things as rules and laws.
And, like I said, that 2nd part outlines what is meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. Without definition, it's just a string of words.
BumRushDaShow
(129,096 posts)And sadly, thanks to the media/pundits, not really having clarification or examples of the terms, makes it difficult to come up with charges that might be applicable. Of course if you look at past Articles of Impeachment, you can get an idea of where the authors of them were going... I would expect that the framers knew there were so many things considered "crime" that to enumerate them in the Constitution would make the document into an encyclopedia, thus the generic statement. To wit: stealing a pencil from one of the WH staff, probably not. Stealing $10 million from the treasury, you bet!
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)I wonder if we will ever get things back on track.
BumRushDaShow
(129,096 posts)our whole system of government is operating under an "honor system". The minute that "honor" is breached, we're through.
sl8
(13,787 posts)Where did that definition come from?
Siwsan
(26,268 posts)At last that's my take on it.
BumRushDaShow
(129,096 posts)I know in my agency, we had a "Code of Conduct" and some of that type of language was also part of that. Having been a supervisor, that was the type term used when you direct (order) an employee to (lawfully) carry out a work assignment and they refuse.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Miigwech
(3,741 posts)Response to Siwsan (Original post)
elocs This message was self-deleted by its author.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)to the Constitution.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Got that one nailed
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,693 posts)calimary
(81,322 posts)Siwsan
(26,268 posts)Perhaps the use of an * would have made that clear.
onenote
(42,714 posts)OMGWTF
(3,959 posts)"All of them, Katie" -- a reference to $arah Palin's response when asked by Katie Couric which periodicals she read.
ffr
(22,670 posts)Link to tweet
"I dont mean to be an alarmist but...POTUS is echoing directly the line of the Kremlin on a whole bunch of things.... this is something U.S. Intel officials have to understand: why is the Pres. saying what hes saying?"- Chuck Rosenberg w/ @NicolleDWallace - WashingtonMonthly
When it's hard to understand how something can be so complicated, it's very possible that the answer you seek is the simplest one.
What else would explain his secret one-on-one meetings with Putin behind closed doors.
RUSSIAN
ASSET
TRAITOR
If Trump Is Not a Russian Asset, What Explains His Behavior?
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)I'm so sick of overly cautious democrats suggesting we should look the other way from this extremely dangerous situation we're in because of Bill Clinton or whatever bullshit justification is said. We are all in danger with him in that house! Period! Look at what he's willing to do, how far he's willing to go just to distract, deflect, or satisfy his fellow deplorables like limbaugh. He doesn't give 2 shits about this country or anyone in it!
bdamomma
(63,875 posts)about himself and his sick ass base, which is a MINORITY.
debsy
(530 posts)Perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, refusal to obey a lawful order. I can think of numerous examples of all but "refusal to obey a lawful order" and possibly bribery, although I'm sure he has done that as well - I believe we just don't have evidence.