Yikes, major failure on my part.Ag with kids said:You DO realize he wasn't question the claim about a crime being needed.richardag said:BenFiasco14 said:richardag said:There was a good argument concerning this on Ingram's show between Saul Weismann(??? Not sure of the name/spelling) and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz argued there had to be a crime and cited a case concerning President Alexander Hamilton. Not sure what is correct, above my pay grade.aggiehawg said:That is the language used in the Constitution but there is no definition of those terms within the Constitution. It is a term of art, not a defined legal term. Thus, nothing for a court of law to parse nor render judgment.jblaschke said:OK, this is something I don't understand. Doesn't impeachment have to be based on high crimes and misdemeanors?aggiehawg said:No. The premise is wrong because impeachment is a political not a legal process. No court should and hopefully would not even entertain such a suit.oysterbayAG said:
If the Dems in the House vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, I think Trump will immediately file a law suit to stop it based on the Constitution not allowing impeachment for political reasons. There must be a real crime !
Consequently, which types of behavior constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever a majority of the House says they are. It is then incumbent upon the Senate to decide whether such behavior warrants removal from office and in a separate determination, whether a ban from any future federal office should be imposed.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/15/alexander-hamilton-the-federalist-and-the-power-of-impeachment/Quote:
Because impeachment is "a NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men," Hamilton continues, it was a power proper to vest in "the representatives of the nation themselves." The "model from which the idea of this institution has institution has been borrowed pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it." Hamilton noted that several state constitutions followed that same model of dividing the impeachment power between the two houses of the legislature. He then explicitly linked institutional arrangement to constitutional function: the power of impeachment is to serve "as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government." Hamilton cinches the point with a rhetorical question, to which he assumes the answer is obvious: "Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?" Hamilton reiterated the point for emphasis in The Federalist No. 66, referring to "the powers relating to impeachments" being, "as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that [legislative] body upon the encroachments of the executive."
The argument is if impeachment becomes a political procedure then the US Government becomes more a parliamentary form form of government. Example is ongoing in the UK with Boris needing votes of confidence, similar to Australia etc,
Again above my pay grade.
ETA: Dershowitz brought up adultery involving Hamilton which was a crime. It was not considered a high crime but a low crime. I didn't fully understand Dershowitz's point.
He was wondering when the **** Alexander Hamilton was ever President...
Me goes to time out in the corner.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
