usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #81
Impeachment has long been a political offense applicable to "abuse of office, neglect of duty, unethical conduct bringing one's office into disrespect, and violating the public trust."
As Bowman and Sepinuck write:
[A]lthough neither [George] Mason nor anyone else at the [Constitutional] Convention offered any particular views on what the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” meant, evidence suggests that the words were intended to embrace at least some non-criminal conduct. Raoul Berger argued that the phrase was a “technical term” derived from English practice, with which the Framers would have been familiar and, therefore, that its technical meaning “furnishes the boundary of the [impeachment] power.” Among the various kinds of official misconduct that fell within the English usage of “high misdemeanors” were such non-criminal behavior as abuse of power, neglect of duty, encroachment on the prerogatives of Parliament, and betrayal of trust....Berger is certainly correct that many delegates to the Philadelphia and ratification conventions would have been sufficiently familiar with English constitutional history to recognize “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as a phrase that embraced territory broader than indictable crime, but more restricted than mere poor performance in office.
From footnote 27 in the same document:
From footnote 27 in the same document:
Berger’s thesis is rendered somewhat more plausible by the recollection that many of the active political figures of the revolutionary generation were also energetic practical political philosophers for whom English history provided the principle source of precedent and comparison.
For example, in 1773-74, John Adams was casting about for a means of resisting parliamentary legislation that undermined the independence of Massachusetts judges by securing them a salary from the Crown rather than, as the Massachusetts charter required, from the colonial assembly. Adams made a special study of English impeachments before proposing that the assembly impeach the judges for violating the charter. Acting on Adams’ suggestion and relying on English precedents, the Massachusetts House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against the judges, although the Council refused to act upon them.
Still, it seems unlikely that the particulars of Adams’ pre-Revolutionary legal research lingered in the memory of any member of the Constitutional Convention fourteen years later, and Adams himself was abroad as Ambassador to England while the Constitution was being drafted and ratified. On the other hand, the fact that Massachusetts had impeached judges for non-criminal violations of its charter would certainly have been well-remembered.
For example, in 1773-74, John Adams was casting about for a means of resisting parliamentary legislation that undermined the independence of Massachusetts judges by securing them a salary from the Crown rather than, as the Massachusetts charter required, from the colonial assembly. Adams made a special study of English impeachments before proposing that the assembly impeach the judges for violating the charter. Acting on Adams’ suggestion and relying on English precedents, the Massachusetts House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment against the judges, although the Council refused to act upon them.
Still, it seems unlikely that the particulars of Adams’ pre-Revolutionary legal research lingered in the memory of any member of the Constitutional Convention fourteen years later, and Adams himself was abroad as Ambassador to England while the Constitution was being drafted and ratified. On the other hand, the fact that Massachusetts had impeached judges for non-criminal violations of its charter would certainly have been well-remembered.
Additional references (same ones cited in post 70) -- I can't make anyone read these papers, but any individual committed to having a strong foundation in forming their normative and active views regarding impeaching Trump should read them...After all, if one is going to discuss the matter, it's good to know well what one is talking about because speculating and wishing (for or against impeaching Trump) will not make it so.
- Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment
- Impeachment and Removal
- Impeachment
- High Crimes and Misdemeanors -- This paper is the Bowman one linked also above. It has, among other things, an excellent discussion on the impeachability of lying.
- Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice
