Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (330838)	3/29/2007 3:08:58 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572485

"I doubt it. The original wording is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Does that suggest a high standard or a low one?" High crimes suggest a high standard. Misdemeanors suggest a low one. So it i reasonable to assume that they left the issue open. Personally, I don't think incompetence is a low standard for impeachment. YMMV.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (330838)	3/29/2007 3:41:05 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572485

<The original wording is "high crimes and misdemeanors."> That's right. And the House of Representatives, who MAKE the laws, determine what the "high crime or misdemeanor" IS. Then, the Senate decides if the president is guilty of it. I suggest you read the Federalist Papers to get a feel for where the Founders were coming from. Remember, the MAIN thing they wanted to prevent was some future "King George"! foundingfathers.info

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (330838)	3/30/2007 6:26:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572485

JCP, > The Founders presumed that impeachment would be used often, for a variety of reasons, not all of them criminal. Incompetence should well fall into this category. I doubt it. The original wording is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Does that suggest a high standard or a low one? Committing a misdemeanor is not an example of a high standard. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor.......I don't consider that a high crime. Because high crimes and misdemeanors are linked together its assumed the transgression has to be serious. That's not correct. Here are some examples of the impeachment of lesser officials: The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment. Treason: a serious crime Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings, on March 12, 1804, and was believed to have been insane. Drunkeness: most of Congress could be impeached on this one. Associate Justice Samuel Chase , a strong Federalist, was impeached but acquitted of judicial bias against anti-Federalists. The acquittal on March 1, 1805, established that political differences were not grounds for impeachment. Political differences is not ground for impeachment. Other officials impeached were implicated in bribery, cheating on income tax, perjury, and treason. More examples of impeachable offenses. infoplease.com Funny how during the Lewinsky scandal, Democrats were arguing for the higher standard. Because it was a witch hunt done on the basis of partisanship. The fact that Clinton committed adultery was not the business of Congress. But the GOP made it their business. Now with Bush in office and the Dems in control on Congress, you want to argue for the lower standard? Bush started a war on false premises..........you don't think that's a serious crime?