>>The point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution has specific criteria for impeachment><< later....
>>After all why would it be only high crimes and bad behavior? Makes no sense.<<
It makes perfect sense, but it would appear that you are so conditioned to Clintonspeak that you do not understand plain-spoken statements.
I'll try to help you.
High crimes....
A subjective determination. What constitutes "high" crime? As opposed to what? "Low" crime? YES. A president could commit a "low" crime (speeding, jaywalking, parking violation, you name it) and most would agree that those would not be impeachable offenses. Thus "high" crime. Now the debate ensues......does perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice constitute "high" crimes. I say yes, my opinion is that those crimes cut to the very heart of our judicial system and most especially should not be permitted by the chief law enforcement officer of our country.
Bad behavior
Again, subjective determination. What makes behavior "bad"? If the president has "bad" behavior (poor manners, boorish, insulting comments to a dignitary, etc.) at a state function, is that impeachable? I think not, an embarrassment to be sure, but unworthy of impeachment. How about drunkeness? Absolutely. Not a crime, but a president in a frequent (subjective determination again) state of drunkeness most assuredly could be considered potentially impeachable. Issues of national security are directly related.
So you see, the constitution does NOT specify which of the crimes or bad behavior are impeachable, only that those categories of conduct of the president should be open to scrutiny and it is ultimately the responsibility of the Congress and Senate to decide if a president has "crossed the impeachment line".
<edit>
I just read Rick's response to your post, we are basically saying the same thing, although Rick's answer is more succinct. Nice going Rick.
bp |
