Can someone please tell me about high crimes and misdeamors?

[commander bunnypants]

what constitutes High crimes and Misdeamors. Getting a BJ and not telling? Bugging your opponets office? lying about uranium? Just curious.


DDQM

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. whatever the people who control Congress think it means

[Skinner]

2. Could you please edit the title of your post?

Our guidelines for starting threads in the General Discussion Forum require that you use an relevant headline for your topic. The headline you have written does not provide enough information about the content of the post.

Thank you.

Skinner
DU Admin

[commander bunnypants]

3. Done

DDQM

[blm]

4. Back in the days when it was established the term "high" meant "of office"

or "official". So the crime was meant to be one that was committed as an act of office, or one committed in an official capacity.

Nixon used his office to direct the IRS and the FBI to pursue his enemies. Those were definitely crimes of office.

[QC]

5. Interesting you should ask that.

Back during L'Affaire Monica, I was arguing with a freeper about that, and he said that the word misdemeanor meant that one could be impeached for, say, a parking ticket or the like.

So, being the pedant I sometimes am, I dragged out my Oxford English Dictionary. It's the one that gives examples of each word as it was used in different historical periods.

Anyway, I looked up "high misdemeanours" and found that in the era in which the Constitution was written, the term had a very specific meaning, namely serious crimes against state, such as assassinating government officials.

Since this freeper professed to be one of those "original intent" types, he had a hard time coming up with a reply.

[BikeDeck]

6. Not the correct phrase

the wording and or phrase "high misdemeanours" does not appear in the Constitution. While the freeper was clearly off his rocker, you injected a phrase into the debate that doesn't exist in the context of the discussion.

[jobycom]

8. Not really

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is one phrase. Given the style of writing of the era, I'm sure it means high crimes and high misdemeanors.

It's a fairly common phrase from the time, and was described by lawbooks as "distinctly political crimes against the state." The Clinton impeachment was clearly illegal in those terms. Dale Bumpers brought this up during his defense of CLinton before the Senate, and it seems to have changed a couple of minds, or at least soldified their opinions. It was just after this speech that Arlen Specter began to express his doubts.

[QC]

10. Good answer.

Could anyone really argue that the writers of the Constitution would pair "high crimes," which are, as the name implies, very serious crimes, such as treason and murder, with very minor crimes, like drinking in public or fighting?

And, as you note, the term "high misdemeanors" is sufficiently common to have made it into legal commentaries, as well as the OED.

[Shigley]

7. The Clinton thing...

wasn't about a BJ, it was about perjury, remember? :eyes:

As for Bush, he's probably not guilty of any of these(proof that the definition's not broad enough), so we'll have to go to the electoral impeachment in 18 months time.

[blm]

9. There was no perjury. Perjury is committed ONLY when

the lie is of a material nature to the case. His lie was NOT material to the case (and ruled as such by the judge), as it was about consensual sex and the case itself, was about unwanted sex.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Learn, Then Lecture

It was not about perjury. There was no perjurious statement, since the materiality of the lie was never established. (Nor was the lack of materiality ever in doubt.)

Before you correct others, you should have your facts straight. It makes for credibility, while your original post does not.
The Professor

[rasputin1952]

12. Impeachment is a political maneuver...

therefore, "high crimes and misdemeanors", can be anything the ruling party says it is, as long as they get enough votes to Impeach.

The Trial is somewhat different, but it too is political.

One of the biggest problems I had with the Clinton Impeachment and Trial, was that it was based on 'perjury', and I saw little, if anything of that charge sticking. the Impeachment and Triwl were to embarass Clinton, and cut back any authority he had.

BTW, one need not be 'under oath' to tell the truth; something that the current adimistration seems to have skipped over while discussing Morality. These people lie with impunity and are rarely, if ever called to defend those lies. But, they will reap what they have sown, their admin is built on sand, and now that sand is giving way.

:nopity: for this admin!

[ma4t]

13. some examples

I'd say obstruction of justice by an individual charged with the administration of justice, perjury, willful breaking of campaign finance laws (willful as opposed to administrative error) would be good examples of high crimes and misdemeanors.