& IMPEACHMENT is the
Last tool in the CONSTITUTIONal toolbox,
I am going to re-post my thread from almost a year ago explaining Impeachment so it can be rolled into one page. It is an 80 tweet thread; I may add new info.
Now words matter. Each and every word in the Constitution matters when it comes to legal interpretations.
Key word is *misconduct* done *while in office*
So what level of misconduct are we talking about?
Broad view: “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; ...whatever...[the Senate] considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office...” Rep. Gerald Ford
We don’t want tainted public servants.
“Regardless of the trappings, the process’ forum, question and sanctions remain essentially political.”
Limits of HIGH crimes and misdemeanors--so much general confusion here.
**TO SECURE THE STATE AGAINST GROSS OFFICIAL MISDEMEANORS**.”
Get it @realDonaldTrump ? It's NOT about YOU it's about the USA 🇺🇸
We DO NOT WANT NOR CAN WE TOLERATE public officials that BESMIRCH their office and thus bring INSECURITY to the state IMPEDING its function for future generations.
But I digress.
Post 7/24/19 the ball needs to start rolling.
[that is until they cut off his head!!! But that was later...]
But, his ministers were not.”
This is the **REALLY** important part👉 “The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is NOT derived from criminal law. IT IS PARLIAMENTARY IN ORIGIN.”
🤔 ignominious treaty like NK?
Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 5-House impeachment power
Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 & 7–Senate power to try & convict for removal only, but once removed still liable to criminal law. *key point*
Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 1–POTUS pardon power EXCEPT for “cases of impeachment”
Art. 3, Sec. 2, Cl. 3–trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury
Okay so here we have a list—is this a complete list?
Lawyers actually have Latin terms for this.
Grab a cup of coffee!
What are we referring to? Treason and Bribery, no.
Noscitur a sociis (the meaning of the word is or may be known from accompanying words)
to understand the phrase: “Or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Okay now let’s dive into “high crimes and misdemeanors”
“Misdemeanors as a class of crimes, the other class being felonies. This suggests that high crimes and misdemeanors was not the thought intended, for a misdemeanor is a minor crime by definition. ...
Of course it is our legal history that puts this logic on its head. The following is scholarship from Raoul Berger in “Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems”
This concludes the analysis of the language itself.
@realDonaldTrump has clearly gone past that line pretty much from day one.
The separation of powers in the Constitution in the House and Senate reflect the legacy of the prerogatives of Commons and the House of Lords.
[Flash forward to present...in 2018] 👇washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
Hahaha good one, Madison
Oops wrong Madison
And thus concludes the section on legislative intent!
Okay so before Nixonland came tumbling down, there were 12 Federal Impeachments.
Next—W.H. Humphreys due to acting as a judge in a Confederate state, and was tried by the Senate during the civil war.
Both these cases provide little help.
1912–Judge Robert W. Archbald was impeached and convicted due to accepting money from wealthy parties who did not have cases before him, speculating in the coal biz, and...
Well damn, we’ve been there for @realDonaldTrump from Day One *cough* *emoluments*
Trump wouldn’t know ethics or probity if it smacked him in the face
or became part of his hair weave.
6 of them were splitting fees with former law partner from a case in which...
The Senate had a majority to convict but not 2/3 for 6 of the 7 articles.
On the last article, conviction occurred with 56 to 28 votes in the Senate.
The actions of the Judge brought “his court into scandal and disrepute, to the prejudice of said court and public confidence in the administration of justice therein, and to the prejudice of public respect...
This is really important. Even though the Senate didn’t convict on the behavior at issue, it did convict based on the dragging the public office through the mud.
”This ruling definitely lays down the principle that even though upon specific charges amount to legal violations, the [Senate] finds the accused not guilty, it may nevertheless...
You don’t need to be a criminal, you just need to bring your office into disrepute through repeated scandal.
"Congress must again decide whether the greater risk lies in executing the Constitution as it was written, or in deferring to voters to do what it cannot muster the courage to do itself." theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…