CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[sartre play]

Would not have impeached Nixon or Clinton, that said, an inquiry into bad governance where the facts & truth are allowed to come out is a good thing, with honesty & facts the people can then decide to fire or retain. Honesty has gone the way of the shoe button.

 

[jwoodie]

The Constitution states the House has the sole power.

LOL, You brought up the analogy of a grand jury indictment, then retreat to your slogan when you have your hat handed to you. Do you actually believe that an impeachment based solely on "I hate Trump" would pass constitutional muster? Do you think SCOTUS would uphold that charge as grounds for impeachment? Or how about "Trump ate a hamburger?" Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

 

[diver52]

The Constitution states the House has the sole power.

LOL, You brought up the analogy of a grand jury indictment, then retreat to your slogan when you have your hat handed to you. Do you actually believe that an impeachment based solely on "I hate Trump" would pass constitutional muster? Do you think SCOTUS would uphold that charge as grounds for impeachment? Or how about "Trump ate a hamburger?" Is that a high crime or misdemeanor?

Yes, I brought up the analogy and it stands. An impeachment is much like an indictment. As to SCOTUS, it is only involved to the extent the CJ presides over the trial in the Senate. Now, what part of "sole power" are you just not getting?

 

[Pellinore]

Diver52 is correct. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are essentially whatever the House deems are serious enough for impeachment. If they thought eating a hamburger was serious enough, yes, they could theoretically impeach the President for eating a hamburger.

Impeachment fills the role for the President (or other high-ranking federal officer) that a Grand Jury indictment fills for you and me. However, it isn't indictment, so the President does not enjoy all of those Constitutional protections that we do if we get arrested, such as being read our rights, being able to face our accusers, and so on. On the other hand, he can't be imprisoned due to an impeachment; the worst he can suffer is to lose his job, and be barred from running for further office.

 

[jwoodie]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are essentially whatever the House deems are serious enough for impeachment. If they thought eating a hamburger was serious enough, yes, they could theoretically impeach the President for eating a hamburger.

Thank you for being willing to answer that question. Now, if you were a Senator and Trump did eat a hamburger, how would you vote on that charge? Remember, the House has the "sole power" to define a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[Pellinore]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are essentially whatever the House deems are serious enough for impeachment. If they thought eating a hamburger was serious enough, yes, they could theoretically impeach the President for eating a hamburger.

Thank you for being willing to answer that question. Now, if you were a Senator and Trump did eat a hamburger, how would you vote on that charge? Remember, the House has the "sole power" to define a high crime or misdemeanor.

If the House thought it was that big a deal, I would hear the argument, but Senator Pellinore would need to hear some *outstanding* justification for why a hamburger would justify impeachment, much less removal. For example, saying "By eating this Ceremonial Whopper, I promise to send Foreign President Soandso a fleet of bombers in exchange for taking my political rival out behind the woodshed" and then taking a chomp would go a long way toward securing my vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution leaves the interpretation of those words entirely to Congress- first the House for the articles of impeachment and then the Senate for the trial. According to the Constitution- Congress's interpretation is the Constitutional interpretation.
And Congress has interpreted them differently than you.
3 officials have been impeached for bribery.
1 judge was impeached for 'drunkenness and unlawful rulings'
1 judge for tax evasion
1 judge for filing false disclosures
And Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice and abuse of power

These are crimes akin to treason and bribery, yes?
Has anyone been impeached for something other than a crime akin to treason and bribery?

 

[sartre play]

Matters not what the white house wants, as the Constitution states "the house shall have the sole power to impeach," feel free to let your house member know how you feel.

 

[jwoodie]

Senator Pellinore would need to hear some *outstanding* justification for why a hamburger would justify impeachment

But that is the SOLE POWER of the House. Once it has decided on what constitutes an impeachable offense, the Senate has to accept that and vote on whether the offense was committed.

Or are you now backtracking?

 

[jwoodie]

Now, what part of "sole power" are you just not getting?

Tell that to Senator Pellinore. And while you're at it, why don't you answer the question I posed?

Now, if you were a Senator and Trump did eat a hamburger, how would you vote on that charge? Remember, the House has the "sole power" to define a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[diver52]

Now, what part of "sole power" are you just not getting?

Tell that to Senator Pellinore. And while you're at it, why don't you answer the question I posed?

Now, if you were a Senator and Trump did eat a hamburger, how would you vote on that charge? Remember, the House has the "sole power" to define a high crime or misdemeanor.

I don't have to tell that to any senator. The Constitution does that. As to your question, I was not asked it. But I would not vote for conviction on the basis of a hamburger. I would not have voted to convict Clinton, not would I vote to convict Trump based upon what I have seen so far. But I am neither a representative nor a senator, so I don't get a vote.

 

[Bush92]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

Nothing has changed since Trump’s first day in office. Democrats, liberal media, and the politically biased FBI have been out to overturn the 2016 election ever since. It’s all political subterfuge.

 

[Pellinore]

Senator Pellinore would need to hear some *outstanding* justification for why a hamburger would justify impeachment

But that is the SOLE POWER of the House. Once it has decided on what constitutes an impeachable offense, the Senate has to accept that and vote on whether the offense was committed.

Or are you now backtracking?

That is the sole power of the House, and there's no backtracking. As a Senator, I would of course accept and respect the House's decision to impeach (as they have the sole power), and then I would fulfill my Senatorial duties and listen to the case, see the evidence, and cast a vote for or against removal. My point is that, if the charge was for something as seemingly mundane and harmless as eating a hamburger, I would need some pretty impressive evidence in order to a) cast a vote to remove, and b) not wonder what the hell the House was thinking.

 

[Skylar]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is what the Congress decides it is.

 

[JoeMoma]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is what the Congress decides it is.

I agree. And the High Crimes and Misdemeanors would need to be vary serious in order to get a 2/3 majority in the senate for removal from office.

 

[Skylar]

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "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."

Let's take a look at the entire phrase. It starts by listing Treason and Bribery, and then adding other high crimes and misdemeanors. In this context, the term "other" can only mean "similar." (Otherwise, there is no need or meaning for that term.)

Thus the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors means those of similar seriousness to treason and bribery. To claim that impeachment is nothing more than a legislative popularity contest is to ignore the specific wording of the Constitution which authorizes this procedure in the first place.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is what the Congress decides it is.

I agree. And the High Crimes and Misdemeanors would need to be vary serious in order to get a 2/3 majority in the senate for removal from office.

Depends on how serious the senate deems the charges to be.

 

[jwoodie]

You people are too funny: First, you insist that the House can impeach for any reason whatsoever, then you say that the Senate can decide whether it is an impeachable offense.

In case you forgot, the Senate only votes as to whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed, not whether it is an impeachable offense (which you keep repeating is within the "sole power" of the House).

Don't you ever think through your positions before posting them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You people are too funny: First, you insist that the House can impeach for any reason whatsoever, then you say that the Senate can decide whether it is an impeachable offense.
In case you forgot, the Senate only votes as to whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed, not whether it is an impeachable offense (which you keep repeating is within the "sole power" of the House).
Don't you ever think through your positions before posting them?

This is especially complicated by the fact the Senate Democrats, on the whole, voted against Clinton's removal because they did not believe the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Clearly, the House is -not- the sole arbiter of what is impeachable and what is not.

 

[Skylar]

You people are too funny: First, you insist that the House can impeach for any reason whatsoever, then you say that the Senate can decide whether it is an impeachable offense.
In case you forgot, the Senate only votes as to whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed, not whether it is an impeachable offense (which you keep repeating is within the "sole power" of the House).
Don't you ever think through your positions before posting them?

This is especially complicated by the fact the Senate Democrats, on the whole, voted against Clinton's removal because they did not believe the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Clearly, the House is -not- the sole arbiter of what is impeachable and what is not.

On what is impeachable? The House is the sole arbiter. As impeachment is essentially an indictment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You people are too funny: First, you insist that the House can impeach for any reason whatsoever, then you say that the Senate can decide whether it is an impeachable offense.
In case you forgot, the Senate only votes as to whether the high crime/misdemeanor was committed, not whether it is an impeachable offense (which you keep repeating is within the "sole power" of the House).
Don't you ever think through your positions before posting them?

This is especially complicated by the fact the Senate Democrats, on the whole, voted against Clinton's removal because they did not believe the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.
Clearly, the House is -not- the sole arbiter of what is impeachable and what is not.

On what is impeachable? The House is the sole arbiter. As impeachment is essentially an indictment.

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.