Posted on 10/31/2012 11:30:10 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
“Read the Constitution.
Impeachment can result in removal from office, and that is all.”
YOU read the Constitution. You’re wrong.
No. YOU read the Constitution.
If that were so, then how did Clinton end up being impeached? The Senate refused, along partisan lines, to conduct any sort of trial, much less consider any penalty. The following, from legal-dictionary, explains it this way:
Impeachment, the constitutional method for removing presidents, judges, and other federal officers who commit "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," requires a majority vote by the House of Representatives, and then conviction by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. President William Jefferson Clinton's impeachment trial was the fifteenth in U.S. history, and the second of a president. Clinton's experience shows that impeachment can be a tool of political warfare. Although the U.S. Constitution only requires a House majority for impeachment, many scholars and other commentators say it should be a bipartisan effort to remove a president who is dangerous to the nation. However, the world of academia differs from that of politics. In contrast, House Republicans pursued Clinton by disregarding polls that said two-thirds of the nation opposed impeachment. The vote in the House then fell mostly along party lines.
As for the process of impeachment, Clinton's experience may affect the future use of witnesses and the viability of censure. The House Judiciary Committee declined to call a single witness to any of Clinton's misconduct, relying instead in the investigation by Independent Counsel KENNETH W. STARR. Democrats criticized this procedure, asking how the House could vote on impeachment without an independent investigation. (In fact, the only other time the House failed to conduct an investigation was when it impeached President Johnson, suggesting that such an approach is political.) During Clinton's trial in the Senate, however, Democrats themselves opposed calling witnesses, a political move motivated by fear that witnesses would reveal something leading to conviction. House managers running the prosecution, who now wanted 15 witnesses after calling none in the House, had to settle for just three. Everyone will remember that lesson next time.
As an alternative to impeachment, Democrats tried to introduce censure resolutions in both the House and Senate. Republicans defeated these efforts. Some said censure was not a legal option, as the U.S. Constitution provides for censure of members of Congress but not presidents. Democrats, however, pointed to past censures of Presidents ANDREW JACKSON, JOHN TYLER, and James Buchanan, and suggested that Republican opposition stemmed from a desire to brand Democrats as supporting Clinton's misconduct during upcoming elections.
Any future impeachment, whether of a president, judge, or other civil officer, will revisit the question of what constitutes "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is undefined in the U.S. Constitution. Those in favor of impeaching Clinton argued that perjury and Obstruction of Justice of any kind are impeachable because they subvert the Rule of Law, making it impossible to expect lawful behavior from ordinary citizens and even future presidents, who are charged by the Constitution with taking "Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Those who opposed impeachment said that while perjury and obstruction of justice are wrong, they are not impeachable offenses unless they concern the president's official duties and present a danger to the nation.
Clinton's impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate thus will affect future interpretation of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in many ways. The House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment for perjury in Clinton's deposition in a civil lawsuit, and for perjury in his criminal Grand Jury testimony. The House voted to impeach only for the latter, suggesting that perjury in a criminal matter is impeachable, while perjury in a civil matter is not.
The Senate, however, voted to acquit Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice even though most Republicans and Democrats believed Clinton lied under oath and tried to influence the testimony of other witnesses. As explained by Senator Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), "The president's conduct is boorish, indefensible, even reprehensible. It does not threaten the republic." This suggests that misconduct, even perjury, that is unrelated to the president's official duties and does not present a danger to the nation is not impeachable.
I hope you wetre able to grasp one of those straws you were grasping for. zero did NOT seal his records via EO but by petitioning a court to have them sealed.
IMO, had zero been able to use the power of the EO to seal his records, it would have been yet another abuse of power (not that zerto cares.)
With respect to unsealing them, a lawsuit will not suffice. Again, as I noted previously, if there is information in those records that are material and pertinent to another court case, the judge can order them unsealed. However, that rarely happens and I don't anticipate any judge being willing to unseal zero's records on a whim.
So?
“If that were so, then how did Clinton end up being impeached? The Senate refused, along partisan lines, to conduct any sort of trial, much less consider any penalty.”
Because an impeachment is not a removal. It is an accusal, a charge, an indictment. The word impeach has become synonymous with removal and that is not the case.
President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, that is, the representatives of the people charged him with a crime. The president was then put on trial before the senate, which did conduct a trial, which was presided over by the Chief Justice. There was evidence presented, argument and counter arguement, etc. The senate, after hearing the evidence, acquitted the president of the charge and thus no penalty was needed.
Is legal dictionary a website? If so, they got it wrong. They seem to focus on the politics and not the historical or constitutional meanings. This is from Federalist 65:
“Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?”
I repeat, the House accuses and the senate holds trial and determines guilt or acquittal. If an accused person is acquitted of a charge, no penalty can or should be assessed.
No lack of understanding at all. High crime and misdemeanor refers to the person committing the crime, not the crime itself. The question still stands, where was the crime?
Did I miss the passage of a new law? This law would of interest to the Presidents that have been elected to Congress after serving their terms as POTUS, such as Adams and Johnson.
you didn’t read the link.
Well, if 60+ years is "new", then yes. I believe that it came with the same amendment after Roosevelt died that limits the POTUS to two terms.
That would make it a few years after Adams. If the Johnson you mention is Lyndon, then he never served in Congress after being POTUS. He refused to run for what would, legitimately, have been his second term and died about 4 - 5 years after leaving office. If you mean Andrew Johnson, then same answer as for Adams.
I did read the link. It was correct up to the point of “. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials” and then became erroneous conjecture. The origin of the phrase in English law referred to applying common law to the behavior of nobility. In this case ensuring the laws of the people apply to the chief executive.
The XXII Amendment applied only to limit a person from holding more than two terms as President, not to any other office. I am unaware of any law ever passed that would bar a President from seeking and holding lesser office.
By the way, Taft served on the Supreme Court after being President. That rounds out the group of Presidents serving in offices after their terms in the White House. Just because it has been a while since anyone has done it, doesn't make it illegal. Although, Bill Clinton is reported to consider Hillary's old Senate seat every now and then.
On second thought, erroneous is strong. A following of Blackstone and Burke would lead an author to the point of including the vagueness of behavior unbecoming of the office.
SCOTUS is an appointed position, not an elected one. The federal law specifically enjoins someone from running for another elected position, but does not address appointed positions.
“...We need to make it INEVITABLE that he faces prosecution....”
And CONVICTION.
Seriously, where is this law?
We both know why there is no answer.....it doesn't exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.