Timeline for If the law cited as the reason for an impeachment article is rendered unconstitutional, does that nullify the impeachment article?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 0:09 | comment | added | phoog |
In response to your edit, which I noticed only now, I would suggest searching for something like "high crimes and misdemeanors" "high misdemeanors". Many legal experts agree with the "high misdemeanors" interpretation. Noah Feldman included it in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee. I also found a review of a 1973 book making the same point. At the root is the fact that the constitutional delegates used language in their discussions that echoes Blackstone's discussion of "high misdemeanors."
|
|
| Jan 12, 2020 at 0:09 | comment | added | pygosceles | @jamesqf equivalence and analogy are two rather distinct concepts. Analogy admits potentially salient and abundant limitations and caveats; equivalence admits none. Clarifying language is desirable. | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 19:37 | comment | added | jamesqf | @pygosceles: "Is equivalent to" clearly means that it is an analogy. | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 19:40 | comment | added | pygosceles | If it is an analogy, it should be clearly specified as such, since later in the answer you identify multiple times that there need not be any actual crimes in an impeachment. I suggest the wording "impeachment is analogous in some ways to a criminal indictment" and use the remainder to clarify how it is similar/different. | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 19:31 | comment | added | BradC | @pygosceles No, that's correct, at least as an analogue to the two parts of the process. Impeachment by the House is like the "indictment", trial and vote in the Senate is like a "conviction". But you are right that you can't read too much into this analogy; a criminal conviction can be overturned by a court; impeachment and removal cannot. | |
| Jan 10, 2020 at 18:39 | comment | added | pygosceles | "Impeachment of course is equivalent to a criminal indictment." Don't you mean "impeachment is NOT equivalent to a criminal indictment"? | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 13:45 | vote | accept | isakbob | ||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 18:16 | history | edited | jamesqf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1108 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 16:02 | comment | added | Mohair | @phoog Now I'm trying to imagine the President getting into a barroom brawl. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 15:36 | comment | added | phoog | @user151841 yes, but that should be parsed as (high (crimes and misdemeanors)) rather than ((high crimes) and (misdemeanors)). If you search for the phrase "high misdemeanors" you'll find that it was used quite a bit in this context in the 18th century. I find it unlikely that the constitutional convention intended the power of impeachment to be wielded against someone who, for example, got into a barroom brawl. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 15:17 | comment | added | user151841 | @phoog the wording of the constitution is "high crimes and misdemeanors". Article 2, Section 4: archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 4:44 | comment | added | phoog | That's "high misdemeanors." The misdemeanors justifying impeachment are those to do with affairs of state. This is something that should have come up more during a the Clinton impeachment. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 3:48 | history | answered | jamesqf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |