CDZ The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment

[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.

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.

Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

 

[jwoodie]

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

Then how would you vote on the hamburger allegation, Senator?

 

[Faun]

"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.

It doesn't have to be a statute violation since it isn't a criminal indictment. It's simply a mechanism to remove someone from office who has abused their power and/or violated the public's trust.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

The Origins of the Phrase
To better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong. To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new government into three branches—the executive, legislative, and judicial. This is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.​

 

[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.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

The house told the senate those felonies were impeachable offenses; the Democrats in the senate said "nope".

 

[Faun]

So, Madison added in "and other high crimes and misdemeanors" in order to provide a catch-all for future generations (us) so that American politicians wouldn't be able to weasel out of deserved charges the way that British Governor did.

So, Madison et al intended for the House of Representatives to exercise veto power over the election of a President just because a majority doesn't like him?

P.S. How do you feel about Pelosi circumventing the House rule requiring a majority vote to initiate an impeachment investigation? Did Madison intend that, too?

There is no such House rule...

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

 

[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.

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

Impeachment is the indictment. It isn't the trial. Regardless of the outtcome of the trial, the indictment remains solely in the hands of the House to decide.

If you're indicted....you're impeached.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

 

[Skylar]

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

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

 

[Skylar]

So, Madison added in "and other high crimes and misdemeanors" in order to provide a catch-all for future generations (us) so that American politicians wouldn't be able to weasel out of deserved charges the way that British Governor did.

So, Madison et al intended for the House of Representatives to exercise veto power over the election of a President just because a majority doesn't like him?

P.S. How do you feel about Pelosi circumventing the House rule requiring a majority vote to initiate an impeachment investigation? Did Madison intend that, too?

There is no such House rule...

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

"Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry. "

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

Again, irrelevant. If the senate agrees, if the senate disagrees.....a president is still impeached.

For offenses that was not impeachable - according to the Democrats in the Senate, anyway.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bill Clinton was impeached! The senate vote was not to remove him from office.

 

[Pellinore]

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

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

You're conflating the terms "impeached" with "removed." "Impeached" is the Presidential equivalent of "indicted."

If I punched my neighbor in the nose and got arrested for it, a Grand Jury would review my case and vote to indict. Even if I am then found not guilty at the trial, I was still indicted.

"Impeached" is the Presidential equivalent of "indicted." A Senatorial vote one way or the other makes no statement on whether they as a group found that the impeachment was justified in the first place, and even if the Senate doesn't vote to remove, the President would still have been impeached.

It's semantics, but there is a difference, Constitution-wise.

 

[Skylar]

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

You're conflating the terms "impeached" with "removed." "Impeached" is the Presidential equivalent of "indicted."

If I punched my neighbor in the nose and got arrested for it, a Grand Jury would review my case and vote to indict. Even if I am then found not guilty at the trial, I was still indicted.

"Impeached" is the Presidential equivalent of "indicted." A Senatorial vote one way or the other makes no statement on whether they as a group found that the impeachment was justified in the first place, and even if the Senate doesn't vote to remove, the President would still have been impeached.

It's semantics, but there is a difference, Constitution-wise.

Winna, Winna, Chicken Dinna!

An impeachment is merely the indictment that the House sends the Senate. It is NOT the removal of the president.

And that impeachment is soley at the discretion of House. The Senate gets zero say.

 

[jwoodie]

And that impeachment is soley at the discretion of House. The Senate gets zero say.

In other words, the House has the power to impeach, but the Senate can tell them that their charges do not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. So much for the House's "sole power" to define those terms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Senate Democrats. in 1998, said otherwise.

Nope. As Clinton was still impeached.
Impeachment isn't removal from office. Impeachment is essentially an indictment that the House sends the Senate.

And the Senate Democrats disagreed with the house on the matter, and voted to not remove Clinton not because they believed him innocent, but because they believed the felonies of perjury and obstruction rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

Which is irrelevant to who decides on impeachment. Its still just the House.

If the senate disagrees on if an offense is impeachable, it does not matter what the house said.

You're conflating the terms "impeached" with "removed." "Impeached" is the Presidential equivalent of "indicted."

Incorrect.
The issue here is who has thew power to determine what is an impeachable offense.
As we saw in 1998, the house decided the federal felonies of perjury and obstruction were impeachable offenses, but the Democrats in the Senate disagreed, and voted to not remove Clinton on that basis.

So, the house impeached Clinton , and the Senate said "no, you're wrong".

 

[Cosmos]

No no no no no. The Constitutional grounds for impeachment is clearly directly related to the loss of an election. This means that any time the House of Representatives is held by the party opposing the President a State of Coup shall exist. Obviously, that was the intent of the Founders.

 

[Skylar]

Bill Clinton was impeached! The senate vote was not to remove him from office.

Exactly. Impeachment is the indictment.

A lot of people just don't get how the process works.

 

[Skylar]

No no no no no. The Constitutional grounds for impeachment is clearly directly related to the loss of an election. This means that any time the House of Representatives is held by the party opposing the President a State of Coup shall exist. Obviously, that was the intent of the Founders.

Nope. An impeachment isn't a 'coup'. Its a constitutional process and part of the balance of powers designed by the founders.

And given that there weren't parties when the constitution was written, the idea that mechanisms for parties was the 'intent' of the founders is an argument that puts cause AFTER effect.

In short, you'd need a blue police box or a delorian to make that steaming rhetorical pile work.

 

[gipper]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

 

[Skylar]

The whole impeachment gambit is ridiculous.

I”m not sure what the remedy is but anytime in the future you have the Oval controlled by one party and the House controlled by another…this will happen.

Maybe make the DOJ independent from both Congress and the Executive and have the power to start impeachment proceedings rest with the AG?

That’s one idea, but that is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

It’s time for a complete make over.

And what would a complete make over look like? It might make for an interesting thread.