Timeline for High crimes and/or misdemeanors
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 25, 2019 at 19:57 | comment | added | phoog | @RickSmith whether it's and or or, it's quite clear that any alleged act is impeachable if it is treason or if it is bribery. Otherwise, for an act to be impeachable, it must be accepted that the act constitutes a high crime or that it constitutes a high misdemeanor. Is there a credible argument that "and" vs "or" changes that interpretation? Anyway, the choice of and or or depends in part on the sentence structure. For example, "eating and drinking are forbidden" vs. "it is forbidden to eat or drink." The question does not quote enough context to say whether that is at issue here. | |
| Dec 24, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | TemporalWolf | @RickSmith I don't see how nitpicking and vs or has anything to do with the meaning of the phrase. In fact, I've only seen support of this reading among contemporary sources: "When the words high crimes and misdemeanours are used in prosecutions by impeachment, the words high crimes have no definite signification, but are used merely to give greater solemnity to the charge." | |
| Dec 24, 2019 at 0:00 | comment | added | Rick Smith | The Constitution says "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 69, wrote, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors". This is not the only time Hamilton has misquoted the Constitution. All the use of "high misdemeanors", in the Johnson impeachment, means is that the House, likely, used Hamilton's error rather than the Constitution's language. The chief justice was required to repeat the language the House used. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 21:32 | history | answered | TemporalWolf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |