Where did you get your law degree compared to where Dershowitz got his?
The criticism is Tribe's, a law professor.
Please reread my comment. My conclusion is drawn from Tribe's criticism.
Moreover, one doesn't need a law degree to know that Dershowitz's claim that
a president cannot be impeached unless there is crime is false.
Moreover, on an anonymous debate forum such as USMB, degrees do not matter (because we cannot verify our credentials), only the argument matters, which I will posit, as follows:
Professor Dershowitz's claim is not accurate because it misunderstands the constitutional basis for impeachment. The Constitution provides that a president may be impeached and removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer exclusively to violations of criminal law.
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art that refers to a range of misconduct by public officials, including abuse of power, breach of public trust, and behavior that undermines the integrity of the office. The framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to be a remedy for serious abuses of power by the president, even if those abuses do not rise to the level of a criminal offense.
In fact, several of the
articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard Nixon in 1974 one was not a crime, abuse of power (but obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress, are).
Moreover, the claim that impeachment requires a criminal offense is not supported by historical precedent. In 1868, the House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, which was a civil statute rather than a criminal law. Johnson was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, but the fact remains that he was impeached for conduct that did not constitute a criminal offense.
By making this claim, Dershowitz, once respected in the legal community, who, in fact, once held the opposite view, then flipped on it when defending Trump and has been backpedaling on the point ever since, is now an embarrassment. In a tweet, he wrote 'abuse of power and obstruction of congress are not criminal like behavior' (thus not impeachable, though obstruction of congress IS a crime), 'criminal like behavior akin to bribery and treason is required', which contradicts the historical context of the meaning of 'crimes and misdemeanors' of the Constitution, I no longer can heed his opinions regarding legal matters. Had he researched the issue more thoroughly, which a scholar must do, there is no way he would hold this view, and thus his opinion is substandard
See:
Trump Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Abandons His Position That Impeachment Requires a Crime
Despite the article's title, he has not actually abandoned it, as his qualification of and backpedaling on the controversy of his claim reveals in the article.
In summary, Professor Dershowitz's claim that impeachment requires a crime is not accurate. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal of the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that encompasses a range of serious misconduct by public officials, including abuse of power, breach of public trust, and behavior that undermines the integrity of the office. Impeachment does not require the commission of a crime, and historical precedent supports this interpretation.
As always, this is my lay understanding of law, as "IANAL".
www.thegatewaypundit.com
