Regarding 'High crimes and misdemeanors' / impeachment

[Tx4obama]

United States

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.

The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.

In the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s for perjury, the exact meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors became the subject of debate. A particular subject of debate is exactly what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some felt that the act of perjury, a federal crime, rose to that level. Others felt that this particular act of perjury, while illegal, did not reach that level because the lie was specifically in regard to a matter of personal infidelity and that the questioning that led to it was allegedly politically-motivated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

----

There has been a lot of talk around the net about impeachment, IF President Obama were to invoke the 14th Amendment.
In my opinion even the idea and the talk of impeachment is RIDICULOUS.

'To impeach' means to 'bring forth charges'.

There would be NO charges to bring forth, it is NOT a crime for a president to 'use the U.S. Constitution'.

I have asked, on many websites, several times over the past couple of weeks "What would the charge be?"
and I have not received even one answer to my question.

I believe that I have not received an answer because there is NO answer since there would be no pertinent charge.

[The Magistrate]

1. These Things Mean, Sir, What a Majority Of the House Deems Them To Mean, No More And No Less

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. And you have had a chance to see...

...the House majority in action recently, if memory serves.

I am seriously not enamored of the whole 14th amendment business -- salus populi suprema lex opens the door through which a Man on Horseback has too often ridden. I suspect Obama has the same reservations, thorough student of the constitution he is.

[stklurker]

2. Section 5

I am not a lawyer, but I believe it would be for violating section 5 of the amendment which means he would have violated his oath of office.

[The Magistrate]

4. It Would Be, Sir, For Doing Something a Majority Of the House Did Not Like

And had the nerve to vote. That really is all there is to it; there is no other standard.

[kywildcat]

5. the only announcement I want to hear from our President...

"....I have, in order to avert a constitutional crisis-signed an executive order. Mr. McConnell, Mr. Boehner, Eric Holder will be contacting you concerning a little matter of pledges to Grover Norquist-and the impact his pledge has had in your oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. I suggest you take his call...."

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. ...and then I woke up.

Political version of a "Letter to Penthouse"....

[steve2470]

6. I was all for impeaching and convicting Nixon in 1974

Also, Shrub in 2008 or before.

Clinton's impeachment was sheer nonsense.

Impeaching President Obama for making sure the full faith and credit of the USA is not damaged ? I can't see anyone who is
not a hyper-partisan Republican voting for that. Of course, there WOULD be Republicans who would vote for it.

All that said, I think the 14th Amendment is absolutely the last resort. The "trillion dollar platinum coin" idea intrigues me.

[elleng]

8. Such talk is, indeed, ridiculous.

[newmexicodem]

9. Semantics of the 14th Amendment

The question about the 14th Amendment is not whether or not the public debt of the US shall not be questioned. It is clear the 14th Amendment supports that we shouldn't default

The point where Obama might get impeached is the 14th Amendment doesn't give the President the authority to act specifically on his own. Unlike other sections of the Constitution where he is given explicit authority on certain things. Congress could theoretically accuse Obama of over-reaching his authority since the 14th Amendment while clear in it's intent does give authority to one man to act. With the Supreme Court have a 5-4 conservative bias.....it is probably not in our interests to have Obama rock the boat sorta speak.

Bottomline the GOP in the House doesn't need a legit reason to bring forth impeachment hearings. They control 240 of the seats and while the Senate will acquit making the proceedings moot......it will cause a huge cloud hanging over Obama's head up into the Election campaign.

It is best for Progessives to bite our tongue for one yr and then demand Obama allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire. That would be a fair and non-controversial way that the Tea Party can't block or obstruct. Obama is not required to extend the tax cuts.......

[cascadiance]

10. The way things are going, he could be more apt to be impeached if he DIDN'T use the 14th amendment..

... and if the "deal" bill that screws us is voted down that he's counting on going through the congress.

If he just lets us default instead of using the 14th amendment, then I think there might be more on the left that might feel more willing to cut a deal to let the Rethugs impeach him.

If we can get them to also impeach one of the Robert's Robber Baron Five on the Supreme Court, I say perhaps even allow him to be convicted. Perhaps throw in that we get Howard Dean appointed as VP to Biden, to set him up to run for 2012 then (assuming that Biden won't run then). I'd let them convict him if we could get such a deal the way things are going now.

But if he were to stand up and use the 14th amendment, THAT is the kind of move that shows that there might be something to hope for if and when he were to become a "lame duck" after getting elected in 2012, and I'd support him fully.

His acid test is right now. I say the Progressive Caucus should stand up for themselves, the people, and what's left of the party, and just say HELL NO to any deal that continues to screw us, and say "Just use the 14th amendment or don't count on our support any more when you do that and we view you from then on as a Republican!"