What Are High Crimes And Misdemeanors?

[Independent thinker]

I have been pondering this question ever since the Trump impeachments and it's still mentioned even today regarding other impeachments or talk of impeachments. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we can actually define what a high crime is or are or that the House can determine what crime rises to the level of being a "high" crime. That still leaves me with these questions which I will, for the sake or argument, limit to presidents only:

1. What are misdemeanors? My understanding is that a misdemeanor, as defined, is a small crime, all the way down to stealing a candy bar from Walmart. So, can we impeach any president just because they stole a candy bar from Walmart?

2. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" uses the word "and". Now, logically speaking, the word "and" implies that in order to impeach, a president would have to commit BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors or you wouldn't be able to impeach him or her. The term doesn't say "high crimes OR misdemeanors" where you could impeach on either one or the other.

3. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" also is plural, with an "s" on the end. So, in order to impeach, would a president have to commit more than one high crime AND more than one misdemeanor?

4. Are we talking about federal crimes or could they be state or local crimes? Federal crimes are, for the sake of argument, uniformly the same in all 50 states. An additional question, which I don't really know the answer to, is, do these "federal" crimes also apply to US territories, such as Puerto Rico, and others? And, what about state and local crimes? In particular, what if something is a crime in one state or locality but not a crime in another state or locality, or, maybe those particular crimes, even if they are the same crimes, are treated differently in different states or localities? Or, can we only impeach a president for federal crimes and not state or local crimes?

I'm sure if I had the time I could come up with even more questions but, for now, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about the whole thing. This is supposed to be a non-partisan thread which can be answered by both sides.

 

[Votto]

I have been pondering this question ever since the Trump impeachments and it's still mentioned even today regarding other impeachments or talk of impeachments. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we can actually define what a high crime is or are or that the House can determine what crime rises to the level of being a "high" crime. That still leaves me with these questions which I will, for the sake or argument, limit to presidents only:

1. What are misdemeanors? My understanding is that a misdemeanor, as defined, is a small crime, all the way down to stealing a candy bar from Walmart. So, can we impeach any president just because they stole a candy bar from Walmart?

2. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" uses the word "and". Now, logically speaking, the word "and" implies that in order to impeach, a president would have to commit BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors or you wouldn't be able to impeach him or her. The term doesn't say "high crimes OR misdemeanors" where you could impeach on either one or the other.

3. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" also is plural, with an "s" on the end. So, in order to impeach, would a president have to commit more than one high crime AND more than one misdemeanor?

4. Are we talking about federal crimes or could they be state or local crimes? Federal crimes are, for the sake of argument, uniformly the same in all 50 states. An additional question, which I don't really know the answer to, is, do these "federal" crimes also apply to US territories, such as Puerto Rico, and others? And, what about state and local crimes? In particular, what if something is a crime in one state or locality but not a crime in another state or locality, or maybe those particular crimes, even if they are the same crimes, treated differently in different states or localities? Or, can we only impeach a president for federal crimes and not state or local crimes?

I'm sure if I had the time I could come up with even more questions but, for now, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about the whole thing. This is supposed to be a non-partisan thread which can be answered by both sides.

What is the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors? Anything related to Trump.

Next question.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Come to Canada and experience "justice" here. We are a bloody old, dying, unimpressive Police State that is hand in glove with the "objective" courts. Only in the odd case does a brave judge or Crown stand up and do the right thing. You are now experiencing the same in many corners and it is a gift to your enemies, a quick way to destroy centuries of hard fought and earned global Goodwill as that light on the hill.

As an example, we had multiple police lie about an assault even as it was caught on video "no problem bro, see you at work tomorrow officer". No charges against the police, they can lie openly and with impunity.

In another case cops admitted they compared notes and met to collude, this almost put a man in prison for life. The judge even questioned the Crown, he was acquitted after years and hundreds of thousands in costs.

In a third instance, the police tried to overcharge a guy for a murder he didn't commit, he was held in prison for months until, again, the "brave" Crown Attorney removed the charges. This was all in a short period of time, all in Ontario.

This is how you run a Kangaroo System. Americans in New York and other Red Star states are learning from Canadians (especially creepy Ontario) but you still have a ways to go.

I'm learning a great deal from the decades of abuse by the state and my wife. It is frightening.

 

[Dante]

I have been pondering this question ever since the Trump impeachments and it's still mentioned even today regarding other impeachments or talk of impeachments. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we can actually define what a high crime is or are or that the House can determine what crime rises to the level of being a "high" crime. That still leaves me with these questions which I will, for the sake or argument, limit to presidents only:

1. What are misdemeanors? My understanding is that a misdemeanor, as defined, is a small crime, all the way down to stealing a candy bar from Walmart. So, can we impeach any president just because they stole a candy bar from Walmart?

2. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" uses the word "and". Now, logically speaking, the word "and" implies that in order to impeach, a president would have to commit BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors or you wouldn't be able to impeach him or her. The term doesn't say "high crimes OR misdemeanors" where you could impeach on either one or the other.

3. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" also is plural, with an "s" on the end. So, in order to impeach, would a president have to commit more than one high crime AND more than one misdemeanor?

4. Are we talking about federal crimes or could they be state or local crimes? Federal crimes are, for the sake of argument, uniformly the same in all 50 states. An additional question, which I don't really know the answer to, is, do these "federal" crimes also apply to US territories, such as Puerto Rico, and others? And, what about state and local crimes? In particular, what if something is a crime in one state or locality but not a crime in another state or locality, or, maybe those particular crimes, even if they are the same crimes, are treated differently in different states or localities? Or, can we only impeach a president for federal crimes and not state or local crimes?

I'm sure if I had the time I could come up with even more questions but, for now, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about the whole thing. This is supposed to be a non-partisan thread which can be answered by both sides.

Most people get it wrong. Look back to England when it started. The colonist were aware of the roots of the term high crimes and misdemeanors, and what it actually meant.

btw, you are totally off base. Do some research.

 

[Dante]

Come to Canada and experience "justice" here. We are a bloody old, dying, unimpressive Police State that is hand in glove with the "objective" courts. Only in the odd case does a brave judge or Crown stand up and do the right thing. You are now experiencing the same in many corners and it is a gift to your enemies, a quick way to destroy centuries of hard fought and earned global Goodwill as that light on the hill.

As an example, we had multiple police lie about an assault even as it was caught on video "no problem bro, see you at work tomorrow officer". No charges against the police, they can lie openly and with impunity.

In another case cops admitted they compared notes and met to collude, this almost put a man in prison for life. The judge even questioned the Crown, he was acquitted after years and hundreds of thousands in costs.

In a third instance, the police tried to overcharge a guy for a murder he didn't commit, he was held in prison for months until, again, the "brave" Crown Attorney removed the charges. This was all in a short period of time, all in Ontario.

This is how you run a Kangaroo System. Americans in New York and other Red Star states are learning from Canadians (especially creepy Ontario) but you still have a ways to go.

I'm learning a great deal from the decades of abuse by the state and my wife. It is frightening.

Join VOTTO and don't bother getting out of bed each day.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Join VOTTO and don't bother getting out of bed each day.

Some of us stand for something. Do you?

 

[Dante]

I have been pondering this question ever since the Trump impeachments and it's still mentioned even today regarding other impeachments or talk of impeachments. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we can actually define what a high crime is or are or that the House can determine what crime rises to the level of being a "high" crime. That still leaves me with these questions which I will, for the sake or argument, limit to presidents only:

1. What are misdemeanors? My understanding is that a misdemeanor, as defined, is a small crime, all the way down to stealing a candy bar from Walmart. So, can we impeach any president just because they stole a candy bar from Walmart?

2. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" uses the word "and". Now, logically speaking, the word "and" implies that in order to impeach, a president would have to commit BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors or you wouldn't be able to impeach him or her. The term doesn't say "high crimes OR misdemeanors" where you could impeach on either one or the other.

3. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" also is plural, with an "s" on the end. So, in order to impeach, would a president have to commit more than one high crime AND more than one misdemeanor?

4. Are we talking about federal crimes or could they be state or local crimes? Federal crimes are, for the sake of argument, uniformly the same in all 50 states. An additional question, which I don't really know the answer to, is, do these "federal" crimes also apply to US territories, such as Puerto Rico, and others? And, what about state and local crimes? In particular, what if something is a crime in one state or locality but not a crime in another state or locality, or, maybe those particular crimes, even if they are the same crimes, are treated differently in different states or localities? Or, can we only impeach a president for federal crimes and not state or local crimes?

I'm sure if I had the time I could come up with even more questions but, for now, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about the whole thing. This is supposed to be a non-partisan thread which can be answered by both sides.

What does 14th century high crimes and misdemeanors mean in today's textualism, strict construction, originalism?

 

[Dante]

Some of us stand for something. Do you?

You're are both seriously delusional.

Now, from some of my old notes/research on the topic in the OP:

diminishing the authority of institutions conservatives liberals radicals

What does high crimes and misdemeanors mean 14th century textualism strict construction originalism

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

By
Frank O. Bowman III

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[shockedcanadian]

You're are both seriously delusional.

Now, from some of my old notes/research on the topic in the OP:

diminishing the authority of institutions conservatives liberals radicals

What does high crimes and misdemeanors mean 14th century textualism strict construction originalism

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

By
Frank O. Bowman III

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

Be a Mensch, not a mouse.

 

[Independent thinker]

Most people get it wrong. Look back to England when it started. The colonist were aware of the roots of the term high crimes and misdemeanors, and what it actually meant.

btw, you are totally off base. Do some research.

I'm not actually asking for your interpretation. The words are the words. It doesn't matter what happened in England. Anyone can interpret anything how they please and Democrats have certainly done that.

 

[Independent thinker]

What does 14th century high crimes and misdemeanors mean in today's textualism, strict construction, originalism?

That is exactly my question. The words are the words. If you start guessing at their meaning then you are merely guessing about everything.

 

[BluesLegend]

This needs to be amended as high crimes, misdemeanors or being a Democrat.

 

[BluesLegend]

That is exactly my question. The words are the words. If you start guessing at their meaning then you are merely guessing about everything.

If the House and Senate can gather the votes they can define what it means e.g. impeach for whatever the hell reason they deem fit.

 

[Dante]

I'm not actually asking for your interpretation. The words are the words. It doesn't matter what happened in England. Anyone can interpret anything how they please and Democrats have certainly done that.

The courts go by the law. What the meanings were when the phrase was written is what the courts go on, not what some anonymous imbecile on an interweb message board is raving about. You OP is nonsensical at best.

You're excused.

 

[Dante]

If the House and Senate can gather the votes they can define what it means e.g. impeach for whatever the hell reason they deem fit.

In the Senate trial is where the issue would be resolved. In the House, members would be schooled on the meanings -- as they have been before.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I have been pondering this question ever since the Trump impeachments and it's still mentioned even today regarding other impeachments or talk of impeachments. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we can actually define what a high crime is or are or that the House can determine what crime rises to the level of being a "high" crime. That still leaves me with these questions which I will, for the sake or argument, limit to presidents only:

1. What are misdemeanors? My understanding is that a misdemeanor, as defined, is a small crime, all the way down to stealing a candy bar from Walmart. So, can we impeach any president just because they stole a candy bar from Walmart?

2. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" uses the word "and". Now, logically speaking, the word "and" implies that in order to impeach, a president would have to commit BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors or you wouldn't be able to impeach him or her. The term doesn't say "high crimes OR misdemeanors" where you could impeach on either one or the other.

3. The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" also is plural, with an "s" on the end. So, in order to impeach, would a president have to commit more than one high crime AND more than one misdemeanor?

4. Are we talking about federal crimes or could they be state or local crimes? Federal crimes are, for the sake of argument, uniformly the same in all 50 states. An additional question, which I don't really know the answer to, is, do these "federal" crimes also apply to US territories, such as Puerto Rico, and others? And, what about state and local crimes? In particular, what if something is a crime in one state or locality but not a crime in another state or locality, or, maybe those particular crimes, even if they are the same crimes, are treated differently in different states or localities? Or, can we only impeach a president for federal crimes and not state or local crimes?

I'm sure if I had the time I could come up with even more questions but, for now, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about the whole thing. This is supposed to be a non-partisan thread which can be answered by both sides.

That is a really good question.

I think part of the problem is assuming that words have the same meaning now as they did when the constitution was written.

I was able to find this online but I am sure there are other interpretations.

Impeachable Offenses: Historical Background

www.law.cornell.edu

At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” thus appears understood to have applied to uniquely “political” offenses, or misdeeds committed by public officials against the state.45 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 46 Such offenses were “Political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 47 In the centuries following the Constitution’s ratification, precisely what behavior constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor has been the subject of much debate.48

 

[Independent thinker]

The courts go by the law. What the meanings were when the phrase was written is what the courts go on, not what some anonymous imbecile on an interweb message board is raving about. You OP is nonsensical at best.

You're excused.

What law are we talking about here?

 

[Dante]

What law are we talking about here?

Try and entry level course:

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Independent thinker]

Try and entry level course:

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not interested in anything that happened in England. This is the United States of America. The words are the words.

 

[Independent thinker]

That is a really good question.

I think part of the problem is assuming that words have the same meaning now as they did when the constitution was written.

I was able to find this online but I am sure there are other interpretations.

Impeachable Offenses: Historical Background

www.law.cornell.edu

At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” thus appears understood to have applied to uniquely “political” offenses, or misdeeds committed by public officials against the state.45 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 46 Such offenses were “Political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 47 In the centuries following the Constitution’s ratification, precisely what behavior constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor has been the subject of much debate.48

Interesting. But, I still don't know what a misdemeanor actually is. From my understanding, stealing a candy bar from Walmart would be a misdemeanor. Most of what I have read, including yours, seems to indicate that high crimes and misdemeanors refers to only one thing but one could easily argue that a a high crime is one thing and a misdemeanor is something different. And, as I stated in the OP, the word "and" is used as if it reads that you can only be impeached if there are BOTH high crimes AND misdemeanors because it doesn't use the phrase high crimes OR misdemeanors.