j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
there is no exact statute in the US code because there was....no read slowly.....
NO
US
CODES
at the time the constituion was written.
2) how utterly ironic that you actually wrote that.
Origins
Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."
In his tweet, Amash noted that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is relatively fluid, but that it has generally been seen as a breach of the public trust:
"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."
In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
PolitiFact - What counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment? Justin Amash got it right
"The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”1 M. Farrand, supra, at 88. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”2 M. Farrand at 172, 186. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”Id. at 499. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.Id. at 550. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">860"
Impeachable Offenses
I find it utterly amazing that liberals, who in the past had little need or respect for the framers, or the constitution, now all of the sudden find themselves lovin' them some of that....The framers clearly thought that the term "maladministration" was too vague, and clearly wanted the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to be equal in legal weight to Bribery and Treason....What we saw here proposed by Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi fell far short of that. And, when they tried to get the Senate to bolster their weak impeachment by bullying them into calling witnesses they failed to call because of their self imposed haste, the Senate rightly were not buying it...
And, when 2020 is over, and republican's retake the house, and retain the senate, as well as re elect Trump for another 4 years, they will exponge the impeachment vote. Then good luck convincing the American people that you should EVER hold anything higher than dog catcher for the next generation.
^^^ wtf? ^^^
This idiot has been radicalized by listening to Limbaugh the dropout tell him how liberals don't like the constitution. Yet every argument made here by democrats is based upon constitutional tenets.
Hey F* u buddy....Your ilk only uses the constitution when they can cherry pick, and bastardize the document for your own ends. Opposite that, you loath the document, and you know it.
