I wouldn't normally cross-post, but I haven't seen any comments yet on the other thread - thought I'd try it here.
An interesting article/editorial was in yesterday's Investor's Business Daily regarding whether perjury would qualify as a high crime etc. It was written by Steve Chabot, a Republican Congressman (obviously an unbiased source <g>). Here is the meat of the piece:
The U.S. Court of Appeals expressed similar sentiments in United States v. Manfredonia, stating, "It is for the wrong done to the courts and the administration of justice that punishment is given, not for the effect that any particular testimony might have on the outcome of any given trial."
As a crime against the state, perjury was directly described as a high misdemeanor at its inception in 15th century England. The high misdemeanor description of perjury is significant. While considered a serious offense, perjury was not labeled a felony because the common law courts would have commanded exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, perjury was classified a "high misdemeanor."
In Hourie v. State, the Maryland Supreme Court gives us a historic perspective on what it called "the high misdemeanor of perjury." The court said that "the phrase 'high misdemeanor' connoted a new crime that was just as grave, in terms of its social consequences and in terms of its potential punishment, as the more ancient felonies themselves."
When state governments were first being established in the early days of the American republic, perjury also was regularly listed in their constitutions as a "high crime or misdemeanor" or some very similar phrase.
The House and Senate also have clearly determined that perjury is an impeachable offense. Less than 10 years ago, the House of Representatives impeached Federal District Judge Walter Nixon. The articles of impeachment included two charges of giving false testimony to a grand jury. The Senate convicted on those counts and removed Judge Nixon from office.
|
