Law Defining "high crimes and misdemeanors"

  • Thread starter Deleted member 159002
  • Start date
This topic has been discussed extensively here.

The short answer is that the Supreme Court gets to decide the substantive definition of a HC&M. It is not, as some believe, whatever Congress deems it to be.
 
I just posted 2 examples of people who mishandled classified documents without malicious intent and were charged.

The nature of the "mishandling" was quite a bit different, if we're being honest.

The issue wasnt about her not being careful; she signed a NDA and it was read to her. She (and staff) knew it was illegal to copy info off the classified server. Nefarious intent or not.

The issue was about not being careful, and potentially facing a higher risk of being hacked.
 
This topic has been discussed extensively here.

The short answer is that the Supreme Court gets to decide the substantive definition of a HC&M. It is not, as some believe, whatever Congress deems it to be.

You mean the Seanate?
 
You mean the Seanate?

Congress holds two distinct powers on the subject of impeachment. The House has the power to impeach. The Senate has the power to try impeachment cases. The House’s role is analogous to a grand jury returning a criminal indictment. The Senate’s role is analogous to a petit jury returning a verdict in a criminal trial. Both chambers work together on the same process, even though they have different roles.
 
Congress holds two distinct powers on the subject of impeachment. The House has the power to impeach. The Senate has the power to try impeachment cases. The House’s role is analogous to a grand jury returning a criminal indictment. The Senate’s role is analogous to a petit jury returning a verdict in a criminal trial. Both chambers work together on the same process, even though they have different roles.

So where does the SC come in at in your view?
 
So where does the SC come in at in your view?

If there’s a Constitutional legal question about the substantive meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the SCOTUS gets to answer it first.
 
If there’s a Constitutional legal question about the substantive meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the SCOTUS gets to answer it first.

But if the House and Senate find him guilty there is no remedy listed that allows SCOTUS to overturn the ruling.
 
But if the House and Senate find him guilty there is no remedy listed that allows SCOTUS to overturn the ruling.

Sure there is. Judicial review. Article II states that the POTUS can only be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. The SCOTUS can decide that the POTUS’s actions, as a matter of law, do not meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

For example, what if the House impeached the president for a parking ticket and the Senate convicted? Or what if they simply decided Trump’s hair was a HC&M? I doubt the SCOTUS would allow that. It would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Think of it like this: Congress’s role in impeachment is basically to judge the weight of the evidence, and to a lesser extent, to determine impeachment procedures. They can say whether the evidence meets the elements of a high crime and misdemeanor, but they don’t get to define the elements.
 
Sure there is. Judicial review. Article II states that the POTUS can only be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. The SCOTUS can decide that the POTUS’s actions, as a matter of law, do not meet the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

For example, what if the House impeached the president for a parking ticket and the Senate convicted? Or what if they simply decided Trump’s hair was a HC&M? I doubt the SCOTUS would allow that. It would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Think of it like this: Congress’s role in impeachment is basically to judge the weight of the evidence, and to a lesser extent, to determine impeachment procedures. They can say whether the evidence meets the elements of a high crime and misdemeanor, but they don’t get to define the elements.

Could @Quipling or @panamaican weigh in on this?
 
Could @Quipling or @panamaican weigh in on this?
A common school of thought is that "high crimes and misdemeanors" may not be up for review by scotus at all. That's because impeachment is an exclusively congressional power. This will be important to separation of power jurists.

The common originalist view is that it is concerned with abuse of office offenses. There are federalist papers to this effect, and it's consistent with early impeachment actions.

It's worth noting that an actual statutory crime does not appear necessary. Andrew Johnson is a useful example here.
 
Last edited:
The common originalist view is that it is concerned with abuse of office offenses. There are federalist papers to this effect, and it's consistent with early impeachment actions.
This view is correct.

A common school of thought is that high crimes and misdemeanors is what Congress says it is-it may not be up for review by scotus at all. That's because impeachment is an exclusively congressional power. This will be important to separation of power jurists.
Note that the two views you described (good job with them, BTW) are not mutually exclusive. One can hold the view that the original meaning of "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to failure to execute the duties of the office, but Congress can still mess that up in an unreviewable manner.
 
A common school of thought is that high crimes and misdemeanors is what Congress says it is-it may not be up for review by scotus at all. That's because impeachment is an exclusively congressional power. This will be important to separation of power jurists.

The common originalist view is that it is concerned with abuse of office offenses. There are federalist papers to this effect, and it's consistent with early impeachment actions.

It's worth noting that an actual statutory crime does not appear necessary. Andrew Johnson is a useful example here.
I was going to say, whole point of the federalist papers

You don't reserve the right to redefine your own terms of impeachment via your own appointees. How does that guy feel good about suggesting that.
 
This view is correct.

Note that the two views you described (good job with them, BTW) are not mutually exclusive. One can hold the view that the original meaning of "High crimes and misdemeanors" refers to failure to execute the duties of the office, but Congress can still mess that up in an unreviewable manner.

The view is not correct. It’s known as the Gerald Ford view (so-called for the late President’s cynical musings) and it represents what many call an absurdist take on the impeachment process. It’s simply untrue. The Court isn’t going to let a President get impeached for anything less than a HC&M.

I’ll point out to you something which other “scholars” on this forum always conveniently overlook: where in the Constitution do the words “high crimes and misdemeanors” appear? The answer is Article II, which sets forth the powers of the executive. Do you think that’s an accident? Why not put them in Article I with rest of Congress’s powers? This idea that Congress has unique peremptory authority to interpret that particular clause (but nothing else) quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
 
The view is not correct. It’s known as the Gerald Ford view (so-called for the late President’s cynical musings) and it represents what many call an absurdist take on the impeachment process. It’s simply untrue. The Court isn’t going to let a President get impeached for anything less than a HC&M.

I’ll point out to you something which other “scholars” on this forum always conveniently overlook: where in the Constitution do the words “high crimes and misdemeanors” appear? The answer is Article II, which sets forth the powers of the executive. Do you think that’s an accident? Why not put them in Article I with rest of Congress’s powers? This idea that Congress has unique peremptory authority to interpret that particular clause (but nothing else) quickly falls apart under scrutiny.
?
I was saying the originalist view---that HC&M requires an abuse of constitutional duty (e.g., signing a treaty approved by only a group of the president's hand-picked Senators) or an actual crime---is the correct view.
 
?
I was saying the originalist view---that HC&M requires an abuse of constitutional duty (e.g., signing a treaty approved by only a group of the president's hand-picked Senators) or an actual crime---is the correct view.

Oh I thought you were referring to the idea that high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress deems it to mean.
 
Could @Quipling or @panamaican weigh in on this?
I'm 90% sure he's wrong here. It's never come up so I can't go to 95%+.

The Constitution is very explicit in granting Congress the full set of impeachment powers. It says the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate has the sole power of trial. Moreover, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides over the trial. That means that the SCOTUS role is already defined in the Const.

So, it's extremely unlikely that any legitimate reading of the Constitution would grant SCOTUS the ability to undermine Congressional intent when it comes to what is/isn't impeachable.
 
Could @Quipling or @panamaican weigh in on this?

Also, if you want lengthier sources on this, Gene Healy is a conservative writer who discusses impeachment at length in "indispensable remedy." I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a good, frew resource. Most others of comparable detail are not available for free on the internet.
 
So we went from Republicans saying there was no Quid Pro Quo at all to well all politicians use Quid Pro Quo and now we've landed on Quid Pro Quo doesn't qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor?

<mma4>

Republicans are some desperate pieces of trash right about now continuing to do whatever is necessary to avoid admitting they allowed a shitbag into office on their party ticket. Trump could literally shoot a baby on the White House lawn and these losers would try to blame the baby for making aggressive movements before they would admit it was a bad idea to vote him into office.

But lying about a blow job, that should do it.

Graham and company have 0 integrity. Graham prosecution of Clinton was merely to restore the integrity to the Office of the President. What Trump has done is miles above lying about a blowjob.
 
But lying about a blow job, that should do it.

Graham and company have 0 integrity. Graham prosecution of Clinton was merely to restore the integrity to the Office of the President. What Trump has done is miles above lying about a blowjob.

Exactly as I've said before, lying to Congress should be grounds for an impeachment. I fully support the impeachment of President Trump for the allegations made against him. When ambassadors are saying you were doing shady shit then that's reasonable enough to investigate. Let the impeachment determine if he committed crimes or not and if he should be removed from office.

That's what our justice system is for and how it should work.
 
Back
Top