Revealing the True State
of the Nation
of the Nation
· Home
High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Critical Perspective
High
Crimes and Misdemeanors
High Crimes and Misdemeanors,
a reading on the meaning of this strange phrase
that is the grounds for most impeachments
and an activity in which students determine
the outcome of hypothetical
impeachment proceedings.
a reading on the meaning of this strange phrase
that is the grounds for most impeachments
and an activity in which students determine
the outcome of hypothetical
impeachment proceedings.
Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley
Drive,
Los Angeles,
CA 90005,
(213) 487-5590
Fax (213) 386-0459
601 South Kingsley
Drive,
Los Angeles,
CA 90005,
(213) 487-5590
Fax (213) 386-0459
[Ed
Note: Recent revelations that have been disclosed through intelligence sources
has led to a review of the basic elements and circumstances of the core data
for predicate and foundation of cause of action on a hypothetical
scenario concerning this area of Constitutional actions which might be
applied to events in context of current direct data from current sourced and
historical context of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise.
Note: Recent revelations that have been disclosed through intelligence sources
has led to a review of the basic elements and circumstances of the core data
for predicate and foundation of cause of action on a hypothetical
scenario concerning this area of Constitutional actions which might be
applied to events in context of current direct data from current sourced and
historical context of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise.
In
broad review as a psychiatrist the patterns of behavior once exercised ,
lubricate recidivism and continuation as a sense of hubris that allows
the perpetrator the view that since they got away with it before , they are
above the law and have an unique protected status, “Psychology of the
Exception” which allows for unique defenses of “in the interests of Security
of the United States” and “Executive Privilege” which can when invoked in high
office to block and obstruct justice from further discourse of the
details of what would otherwise be direct clarity of investigation in
other circumstances.
broad review as a psychiatrist the patterns of behavior once exercised ,
lubricate recidivism and continuation as a sense of hubris that allows
the perpetrator the view that since they got away with it before , they are
above the law and have an unique protected status, “Psychology of the
Exception” which allows for unique defenses of “in the interests of Security
of the United States” and “Executive Privilege” which can when invoked in high
office to block and obstruct justice from further discourse of the
details of what would otherwise be direct clarity of investigation in
other circumstances.
In
light of the forum of the 2016 Election cycle, it is up to the court of last
resort the people of the United States v the Central CommitteeEstablishment in
academic hypothetical case, to make a clear determination as
to whether the issue of High Crimes and Misdemeanors has relevance and bearing in
their choice at the polls to determine eligibility for office
and execution of the trust and confidence in the credibility of their
political and personal behavior supports the endorsement for public
office.
light of the forum of the 2016 Election cycle, it is up to the court of last
resort the people of the United States v the Central CommitteeEstablishment in
academic hypothetical case, to make a clear determination as
to whether the issue of High Crimes and Misdemeanors has relevance and bearing in
their choice at the polls to determine eligibility for office
and execution of the trust and confidence in the credibility of their
political and personal behavior supports the endorsement for public
office.
In
context this could include:
context this could include:
§ Watergate
§ Chinagate selling intelligence assets for other consideration to
office holder
office holder
§ Mena, Arkansas Drug-running Operation —
Cocaine
Cocaine
§ Benghazigate
§ Whitewatergate
§ Isolated political adversaries for multiple unexplained
death
death
§ Selling email TOP SECRET memos to expose critical Security Issues
to foreign powers for campaign funds
to foreign powers for campaign funds
§ Selling special grants for major military security interests to
foreign powers for donations to foundation.
foreign powers for donations to foundation.
§ Firing White House Aids for political favors to donors
As
responsible citizens of the United
States we have a forum to evaluate the
definitive resolution of the placing in office the people responsible for the
management and destiny of our families and homes in the hands of clearly
responsible and honest trustworthy people.
responsible citizens of the United
States we have a forum to evaluate the
definitive resolution of the placing in office the people responsible for the
management and destiny of our families and homes in the hands of clearly
responsible and honest trustworthy people.
In
the early history these people were considered GODS , Emperors for life, and the later the Divine Right of
Kings, under the current government the imperfections of people in
general are included in the process and the Forum of Last Resort is provided to us by the
democratic practice, realizing that human perfection is not one of the
choices.
the early history these people were considered GODS , Emperors for life, and the later the Divine Right of
Kings, under the current government the imperfections of people in
general are included in the process and the Forum of Last Resort is provided to us by the
democratic practice, realizing that human perfection is not one of the
choices.
Arden Gifford, MD
Addiction Psychiatrist
American Board of Psychiatrist And Neurology]
Addiction Psychiatrist
American Board of Psychiatrist And Neurology]
————————Article———————–
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The
U.S.
Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president,
vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The
impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these
steps:
U.S.
Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president,
vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The
impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these
steps:
1. The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if
necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the
official.
necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the
official.
2. If a majority of the committee votes to approve
the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
3. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the
official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
4. For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the
Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is
automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding
governmental office again.
Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is
automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding
governmental office again.
The
impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to
impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and
punish officials if they have committed crimes.
impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to
impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and
punish officials if they have committed crimes.
The
Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment.
Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment.
“They
are “treason, bribery, and
other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
To
be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the
official committed one of these acts.
be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the
official committed one of these acts.
The
Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States,
shall consist only in levying War against them,
or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort.
No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses
to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses
to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The
Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in
English and American common law.
Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in
English and American common law.
It takes place when a person
gives an official money or gifts
to influence the official’s behavior in office.
For
example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not
guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.
example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not
guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.
Prior
to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun
impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials —one U.S. senator,
two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges. Two of the17
resigned from office before the House voted to impeach.
to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun
impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials —one U.S. senator,
two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges. Two of the17
resigned from office before the House voted to impeach.
Of
the 15 impeached, the Senate voted to convict only seven — all were federal
judges. The Senate dropped the case against the senator, ruling that a senator
could not be impeached. One judge resigned from office before the Senate voted
on his case. The Senate voted to acquit the other six officials.
the 15 impeached, the Senate voted to convict only seven — all were federal
judges. The Senate dropped the case against the senator, ruling that a senator
could not be impeached. One judge resigned from office before the Senate voted
on his case. The Senate voted to acquit the other six officials.
In
all the articles of impeachment that the House has drawn, no official has been
charged with treason. (The closest to a charge of treason was one federal judge
who was impeached and convicted for siding with the South and taking a position
as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.) Two officials have been charged
with bribery. The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under
the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
all the articles of impeachment that the House has drawn, no official has been
charged with treason. (The closest to a charge of treason was one federal judge
who was impeached and convicted for siding with the South and taking a position
as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.) Two officials have been charged
with bribery. The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under
the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
What
are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people
probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and
misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If
this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply
mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people
probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and
misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If
this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply
mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
The Origins of the Phrase
To
better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the
framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention
in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what
existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American
Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of
the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong.
To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new
government into three branches—the executive, legislative, and judicial. This
is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check
the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the
legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed
laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.
better understand the meaning of the phrase, it’s important to examine how the
framers of the Constitution came to adopt it. At the Constitutional Convention
in 1787, the framers wanted to create a stronger central government than what
existed under the Articles of Confederation. Adopted following the American
Revolution, the Articles of Confederation provided for a loose organization of
the states. The framers wanted a stronger federal government, but not one too strong.
To achieve the right balance, the framers divided the powers of the new
government into three branches—the executive, legislative, and judicial. This
is known as the separation of powers. They also gave each branch ways to check
the power of the other branches. For example, although Congress (the
legislative branch) makes laws, the president (the executive) can veto proposed
laws. This complex system is known as checks and balances.
Impeachment
of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at
the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread
support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed
some check on their power.
of judges and executive officials by Congress was one of the checks proposed at
the Constitutional Convention. The impeachment of judges drew widespread
support, because federal judges would hold lifetime appointments and needed
some check on their power.
But
some framers opposed impeachment of
executive officials, arguing that the
president’s power could be checked
every four years by elections.
James
Madison of Virginia
successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of
a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the
office. He contended that
Madison of Virginia
successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of
a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the
office. He contended that
“loss
of capacity, or corruption . . .
might be fatal to the republic”
of capacity, or corruption . . .
might be fatal to the republic”
if
the president could not be removed until the next election.
the president could not be removed until the next election.
With
the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on
the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and
corruption.”Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet
decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the
grounds.
the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on
the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and
corruption.”Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet
decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the
grounds.
But
the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding
“maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the
harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren
Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General
of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the
Indian people brutally.
the committee’s recommendation did not satisfy everyone. George Mason of Virginia proposed adding
“maladministration.” He thought that treason and bribery did not cover all the
harm that a president might do. He pointed to the English case of Warren
Hastings, whose impeachment trial was then being heard in London. Hastings, the first Governor General
of Bengal in India, was accused of corruption and treating the
Indian people brutally.
Madison objected to
“maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten
the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with
on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over
the executive.
“maladministration.” He thought this term was so vague that it would threaten
the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with
on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over
the executive.
Mason
abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors
against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped
“against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution,
stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States,
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors
against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped
“against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution,
stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States,
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The
convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most
of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had
used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials
of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused
of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates,
convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most
of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had
used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials
of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused
of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates,
not prosecuting cases,
not
spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more
deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from
Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a
ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call
a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these
charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these
accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office
and was unfit to serve.
spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more
deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from
Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a
ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call
a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these
charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these
accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office
and was unfit to serve.
After
the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the
states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of
essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In
Federalist No. 65, Hamilton
explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or
violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself.”
the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the
states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of
essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In
Federalist No. 65, Hamilton
explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or
violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself.”
For
the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has
seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases
involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House
charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing
favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for
financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting
false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the
court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making
false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential
information.
the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has
seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases
involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House
charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing
favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for
financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting
false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the
court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making
false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential
information.
Only
three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard
Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these
three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and
misdemeanors.”
three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard
Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these
three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and
misdemeanors.”
Andrew Johnson
Andrew
Johnson was the only senator from a Southern state who stayed loyal to the
union during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln, seeking to reconcile
with the South, tapped Johnson, a Democrat, as his vice-presidential running
mate in 1864. When Lincoln
was assassinated at the war’s end in 1865, Johnson assumed the presidency. He
immediately ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over
Reconstruction of the South. The Radical Republicans supported military rule in
the South and voting rights and redistribution of land for blacks. Johnson
disagreed and favored a quick return to civilian rule. The two sides grew
increasingly farther apart as Congress repeatedly passed Reconstruction
legislation, Johnson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. Over Johnson’s
veto, Congress passed a Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get
permission from Congress before firing any member of the executive branch who
had been approved by Congress. Johnson responded by firing the secretary of
war, Edwin Stanton, a Radical Republican. His firing violated the Tenure of
Office Act. But Johnson believed the act was unconstitutional. The House passed
11 articles of impeachment. Eight involved Johnson’s violations of the Tenure
of Office Act. One charged him with sending orders through improper channels.
Another accused him of conspiring against Congress, citing a statement he made
about Congress not representing all the states. The last summarized the other
10 charges and charged him with failing to enforce the Reconstruction Acts. At
the end of the Senate trial, only three charges were brought to a vote. Johnson
was saved from conviction on each by one vote.
Johnson was the only senator from a Southern state who stayed loyal to the
union during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln, seeking to reconcile
with the South, tapped Johnson, a Democrat, as his vice-presidential running
mate in 1864. When Lincoln
was assassinated at the war’s end in 1865, Johnson assumed the presidency. He
immediately ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over
Reconstruction of the South. The Radical Republicans supported military rule in
the South and voting rights and redistribution of land for blacks. Johnson
disagreed and favored a quick return to civilian rule. The two sides grew
increasingly farther apart as Congress repeatedly passed Reconstruction
legislation, Johnson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. Over Johnson’s
veto, Congress passed a Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get
permission from Congress before firing any member of the executive branch who
had been approved by Congress. Johnson responded by firing the secretary of
war, Edwin Stanton, a Radical Republican. His firing violated the Tenure of
Office Act. But Johnson believed the act was unconstitutional. The House passed
11 articles of impeachment. Eight involved Johnson’s violations of the Tenure
of Office Act. One charged him with sending orders through improper channels.
Another accused him of conspiring against Congress, citing a statement he made
about Congress not representing all the states. The last summarized the other
10 charges and charged him with failing to enforce the Reconstruction Acts. At
the end of the Senate trial, only three charges were brought to a vote. Johnson
was saved from conviction on each by one vote.
History
has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. The charges
are generally seen as politically motivated, based on the extreme disagreement
over Reconstruction between Congress and the president. They are not viewed as
“high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of removing a president from office. Most
commentators look on this impeachment as a severe threat to the separation of
powers.
has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. The charges
are generally seen as politically motivated, based on the extreme disagreement
over Reconstruction between Congress and the president. They are not viewed as
“high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of removing a president from office. Most
commentators look on this impeachment as a severe threat to the separation of
powers.
Richard Nixon
The
next presidential impeachment case did not arise for more than 100 years.
Before taking a look at the Nixon impeachment case, it’s worth examining a
famous comment made a few years before (in 1970) by then-Congressman Gerald
Ford, who would later succeed Richard Nixon as president. For years, Ford had
urged the House to impeach a liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Although
Ford’s attempts failed, he uttered memorable words about “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” He stated that “an impeachable offense is
whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a
given moment in history.” Ford argued that “there are few fixed
principles among the handful of precedents.” In one sense, Ford is right. If
the House votes articles of impeachment, the vote cannot be challenged in
court. The Constitution gives the House sole authority over impeachment. So if
the House votes articles of impeachment for any reason, the official is
impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. But in another sense, Ford is
clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution did not give Congress absolute
power to remove judges and executive officials. It wanted Congress to use its
impeachment power only in extreme circumstances, when an official had committed “treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separation of powers
depends on Congress limiting impeachments to these cases.
next presidential impeachment case did not arise for more than 100 years.
Before taking a look at the Nixon impeachment case, it’s worth examining a
famous comment made a few years before (in 1970) by then-Congressman Gerald
Ford, who would later succeed Richard Nixon as president. For years, Ford had
urged the House to impeach a liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Although
Ford’s attempts failed, he uttered memorable words about “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” He stated that “an impeachable offense is
whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a
given moment in history.” Ford argued that “there are few fixed
principles among the handful of precedents.” In one sense, Ford is right. If
the House votes articles of impeachment, the vote cannot be challenged in
court. The Constitution gives the House sole authority over impeachment. So if
the House votes articles of impeachment for any reason, the official is
impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. But in another sense, Ford is
clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution did not give Congress absolute
power to remove judges and executive officials. It wanted Congress to use its
impeachment power only in extreme circumstances, when an official had committed “treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separation of powers
depends on Congress limiting impeachments to these cases.
In
1972, Richard Nixon won a landslide reelection to a second term as president.
During the election, burglars, with links to the White House, had been caught
breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. The burglary
drew little press attention at the time. But it would lead to events that
ultimately brought down the president. Nixon may or may not have had advance
knowledge of the burglary. He probably feared, however, that its investigation
might uncover evidence of political spying and the illegal use of campaign
funds on the part of his administration. So he took anactive role in obstructing the
investigation. He discussed raising hush money for the burglars and enlisted
the FBI and CIA in squelching the investigation. In 1974, the House Judiciary
committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction
of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with
contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents.
Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles.
1972, Richard Nixon won a landslide reelection to a second term as president.
During the election, burglars, with links to the White House, had been caught
breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. The burglary
drew little press attention at the time. But it would lead to events that
ultimately brought down the president. Nixon may or may not have had advance
knowledge of the burglary. He probably feared, however, that its investigation
might uncover evidence of political spying and the illegal use of campaign
funds on the part of his administration. So he took anactive role in obstructing the
investigation. He discussed raising hush money for the burglars and enlisted
the FBI and CIA in squelching the investigation. In 1974, the House Judiciary
committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction
of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with
contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents.
Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles.
The
committee had declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax
evasion. The committee did not believe this was an impeachable offense. It
based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for
Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before
beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and
grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:
committee had declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax
evasion. The committee did not believe this was an impeachable offense. It
based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for
Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before
beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and
grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:
Not
all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for
impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the
nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either
the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper
performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.
all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for
impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the
nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either
the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper
performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.
The
same year Yale Law School
professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book,
Impeachment: A Handbook.
same year Yale Law School
professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book,
Impeachment: A Handbook.
Oct
7, 1998
7, 1998
by Charles
Black Jr.
Black Jr.
Black
agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously.
Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the
conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on
the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so
stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public
order.”
agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously.
Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the
conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on
the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so
stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public
order.”
Black’s
book cited two examples of presidential misconduct that would not merit
impeachment: (1) a president brings a female minor across a state line for
“immoral purposes” in violation of federal law and (2) a president obstructs
justice by helping hide marijuana for a White House intern. Black considered it
“preposterous” to impeach a president for these acts. These examples would
prove relevant to President Clinton’s impeachment case more than 20 years
later.
book cited two examples of presidential misconduct that would not merit
impeachment: (1) a president brings a female minor across a state line for
“immoral purposes” in violation of federal law and (2) a president obstructs
justice by helping hide marijuana for a White House intern. Black considered it
“preposterous” to impeach a president for these acts. These examples would
prove relevant to President Clinton’s impeachment case more than 20 years
later.
Bill Clinton
Bill
Clinton was elected president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. During his first
term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate
Clinton was elected president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. During his first
term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate
· Whitewater, an Arkansas
land deal involving Clinton
that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation
later expanded to include scandals surrounding the
land deal involving Clinton
that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation
later expanded to include scandals surrounding the
· firing of White House staff in its travel office,
· the misuse of FBI files, and
· an illicit affair that the president had
with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a
report to the House Judiciary Committee.
with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a
report to the House Judiciary Committee.
It
found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal.
Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee
voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of
committing
found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal.
Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee
voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of
committing
· perjury before a grand jury
convened by the independent counsel. The
convened by the independent counsel. The
· second charged him with
providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony”
in a civil case related to the scandal. The
providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony”
in a civil case related to the scandal. The
· third accused him of obstructing justice to “delay,
impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The
impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The
· fourth charged that he misused
and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and
other employees so that they would
and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and
other employees so that they would
· mislead the public, asserting
executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the
committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.
executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the
committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.
During
the Judiciary Committee’s hearings, experts testified on what constituted “high
crimes and misdemeanors.” The experts called by the Democrats argued that none
of the allegations against the president rose to the level of “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” These experts echoed the reasoning found in the 1974 staff
report and Professor Charles Black’s book on impeachment.
the Judiciary Committee’s hearings, experts testified on what constituted “high
crimes and misdemeanors.” The experts called by the Democrats argued that none
of the allegations against the president rose to the level of “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” These experts echoed the reasoning found in the 1974 staff
report and Professor Charles Black’s book on impeachment.
The
experts called by the Republicans disagreed. They pointed out that federal
judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that the
president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties
as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
experts called by the Republicans disagreed. They pointed out that federal
judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that the
president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties
as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
For
Discussion and Writing
Discussion and Writing
Explain
the impeachment process.
the impeachment process.
Why
do you think the framers of the Constitution made the House and Senate
responsible for impeachments and not the judicial branch?
do you think the framers of the Constitution made the House and Senate
responsible for impeachments and not the judicial branch?
In
your opinion, what are high crimes and misdemeanors?
your opinion, what are high crimes and misdemeanors?
A C T I V I T Y
In
this activity, students role play members of the House Judiciary Committee
deciding whether hypothetical cases constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Divide the class into small groups. Each group will role play House Judiciary
Committee. Do the following:
this activity, students role play members of the House Judiciary Committee
deciding whether hypothetical cases constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Divide the class into small groups. Each group will role play House Judiciary
Committee. Do the following:
Read
and discuss each of the four hypothetical cases.
and discuss each of the four hypothetical cases.
Decide
for each case whether the action described in it constitutes a “high crime
and misdemeanor.”
for each case whether the action described in it constitutes a “high crime
and misdemeanor.”
Prepare
to report your decisions and the reasons for them to the rest of the class.
to report your decisions and the reasons for them to the rest of the class.
Hypothetical
Case #1
Case #1
The
president, after a long feud, has killed a political opponent. The state in
which the killing occurred has indicted the president for murder.
president, after a long feud, has killed a political opponent. The state in
which the killing occurred has indicted the president for murder.
Hypothetical
Case #2
Case #2
The
president has committed bigamy. His previous wife left him 30 years ago, but he
failed to get a proper divorce before remarrying. He made false statements on
the forms he filled out to get a marriage license.
president has committed bigamy. His previous wife left him 30 years ago, but he
failed to get a proper divorce before remarrying. He made false statements on
the forms he filled out to get a marriage license.
Hypothetical
Case #3
Case #3
The
president has secretly sent assassins to kill a hostile foreign leader. This
violates U.S.
law.
president has secretly sent assassins to kill a hostile foreign leader. This
violates U.S.
law.
Hypothetical
Case #4
Case #4
The
president has just pardoned five high-ranking members of his administration who
had been convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for bribery. The
president had nothing to do with the bribery scandal.
president has just pardoned five high-ranking members of his administration who
had been convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for bribery. The
president had nothing to do with the bribery scandal.
©
2016 CRF-USA • Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590 Fax (213)
386-0459 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
2016 CRF-USA • Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590 Fax (213)
386-0459 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
This entry was posted in Uncategorized.
Bookmark the permalink.
Bookmark the permalink.
·
·
·
· Recent Posts
§ Laus
Deo
Deo
§ US
Empire Goes Berserk: Unleashes Legal Jackals On All Perceived Enemies For
Financial Expropriation
Empire Goes Berserk: Unleashes Legal Jackals On All Perceived Enemies For
Financial Expropriation
· Archives
§ May
2016
2016
§ July
2015
2015
§ June
2015
2015
§ May
2015
2015
§ July
2014
2014
§ June
2014
2014
§ May
2014
2014
§ July
2012
2012
§ June
2012
2012
§ May
2012
2012
· Categories
· Meta
§ Log
in
in
No comments:
Post a Comment