HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Article II, Section 4 of ...

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 07:49 PM

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. We have it. We need to use it.

I don't see how anybody can argue that the way to remove trump* is contained the 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' section. And, of course, people WILL argue, and I'm not above being educated.



He's abusing his authority, intimidating, misusing assets, and don't get me started on the 'conduct unbecoming'.

54 replies, 4061 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. We have it. We need to use it. (Original post)
Siwsan Jan 11 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Jan 11 #1
Name removed Jan 11 #2
Siwsan Jan 11 #4
Lonestarblue Jan 11 #25
cstanleytech Jan 11 #28
Codeine Jan 11 #29
mountain grammy Jan 11 #3
aeromanKC Jan 11 #5
Siwsan Jan 11 #7
aeromanKC Jan 11 #11
BadgerMom Jan 11 #12
TomSlick Jan 11 #6
Siwsan Jan 11 #9
TomSlick Jan 11 #14
Siwsan Jan 11 #18
Fiendish Thingy Jan 11 #30
TomSlick Jan 11 #34
Fiendish Thingy Jan 11 #43
kst Jan 11 #35
sl8 Jan 11 #37
Siwsan Jan 11 #39
kst Saturday #45
Siwsan Saturday #52
kst Saturday #53
Siwsan Saturday #54
Voltaire2 Saturday #49
B Stieg Jan 11 #8
BumRushDaShow Jan 11 #10
Siwsan Jan 11 #15
BumRushDaShow Jan 11 #19
Siwsan Jan 11 #20
BumRushDaShow Jan 11 #23
sl8 Jan 11 #13
Siwsan Jan 11 #16
BumRushDaShow Jan 11 #21
Voltaire2 Saturday #51
Miigwech Jan 11 #17
elocs Jan 11 #22
Codeine Jan 11 #24
jberryhill Jan 11 #26
onenote Saturday #47
Martin Eden Jan 11 #27
Pepsidog Jan 11 #31
littlemissmartypants Jan 11 #38
calimary Jan 11 #32
Siwsan Jan 11 #33
onenote Saturday #48
OMGWTF Jan 11 #36
ffr Jan 11 #40
ecstatic Jan 11 #41
bdamomma Jan 11 #44
debsy Jan 11 #42
Stuart G Saturday #46
ck4829 Saturday #50

Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 07:54 PM

1. This looks very applicable to our current situation. I'm in favor. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:01 PM

4. Damn. I hadn't considered what that psycho might do to get his revenge

So, there is that.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:54 PM

25. Wouldn't impeachment in the House at least damage his re-election chancea?

Plus, we need to hold people accountable for their actions. If Trump walks away with no consequences for his atrocious behavior unbecoming to the office of President, allegiance to a foreign government, violation of the emoluments clause, and trading foreign policy concessions for personal,business gains while in office, then we will have set a new standard of acceptable behavior in a president. Even without the conspiracy with Russia, Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Deciding not to hold impeachment hearings just because a partisan Senate may not convict is tantamount to accepting high crimes and misdemeanors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:08 PM

28. Honestly I doubt it would cause any further damage to his chances.

After all he is pretty much at the bottom of the toilet bowl already and all he now has is a base or moronic idiots left that support him blindly but he has lost the vast majority of voters that even have a shred of common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lonestarblue (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:12 PM

29. I don't think it's tantamount to accepting

high crimes and misdemeanors so much as it is tantamount to accepting that while windmill tilting might be great for delusional early-17th Century Spaniards it is far less so for a working Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 07:59 PM

3. The remedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:07 PM

5. Political malpractice for House to NOT impeach

For history and precident purposes at the very least. Let there be a trial in the Senate and let them vote after due process has been given.

And this is from just from what we know now!! Heaven knows what there might be after Mueller reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aeromanKC (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:20 PM

7. If things get too hot, I wonder if he'd pull a Nixon

I can't see him wanting to go through an impeachment hearing. I seriously don't think he's capable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:26 PM

11. Would claim victim status

If he went the Nixon rpute, he would claim that he's a victim. Alford plea crying like a baby. Fake evidence, whaaaaaa fake evidence whaaaaaa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:29 PM

12. I could see it.

If he could make himself a gigantic martyr, he might do it if a deal had been brokered that resignation would mean no or less punishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:19 PM

6. The second bit is not in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:21 PM

9. I think that is just the explanation of what is meant by that term

But, again, that's just my 'think'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:32 PM

14. The problem is, it isn't a good definition.

"High crimes" in common law generally refers to felonies and misdemeanors are - well - misdemeanors. That would suggest that impeachment is appropriate only for criminal conduct. I think that definition too restrictive.

In the end, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means what a majority of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate believe it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:35 PM

18. Well, I didn't author it - just shared it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:14 PM

30. That is incorrect

High Crimes is a term of old English common law:

https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

"High" refers to the office, not the seriousness of the crime or even the fact that a statutory violation is required to impeach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:46 PM

34. I'm unconvinced.

At the risk of an ad hominem, I am leery of accepting the legal research of Jon Roland (a "computer specialist" and Libertarian politician) who has advocated for the abolition of paper money and the right of citizens to resist what they believe to be an unlawful arrest.

The Constitution Society, which is a Libertarian and militia supporting organization, is at least equally suspect. The website is good source for the explanation of dangers posed by the "deep state" and right-wing legal theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:54 PM

43. That's not the only source that takes that position

It's on numerous sources:

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt; it meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.[2] The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

"It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[3][4]
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[5] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]"

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

"Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry, first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary."

Many, many more example on The Google...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:58 PM

35. Whose explanation?

Yes, it's an explanation of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means -- but whose explanation?

If there's some reason we should take it seriously, or expect Congress to take it seriously, that's great, but it's not something I've ever seen before. And the President isn't subject to "a lawful order".

Experience has taught me to distrust any information presented as a picture of text with no references.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kst (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:08 PM

37. It appears to be from "Rude and Rotten Republicans"

You can see a watermark or imprint at the top right.

Where they got it from I've no idea.

I'm guessing they wouldn't mind misleading some people into thinking it's from the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kst (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:23 PM

39. To each their own

But, if it is the explanation, I'm not sure why it matters who scripted it. I just don't have the time and energy for that kind of minutia. If you do, more power to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:42 AM

45. Re: To each their own

But the point is that it isn't the explanation. As far as I can tell, it's just somebody's made-up description of what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, with no real legal or Constitutional basis. (And the use of quotation marks in the image seems designed to fool readers into thinking that it's the real definition.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kst (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 09:05 AM

52. I guess you could look it up



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:50 PM

53. Re: I guess you could look it up

Sure, you could look it up. But the image seems designed to deceive the majority of people who won't bother.

And you don't have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kst (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:58 PM

54. I am not the one questioning it, so.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 07:16 AM

49. Yeah that's a huge wtf?

The graphic makes it look like part of the text. It isn’t. There is no constitutional definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:20 PM

8. Check, check, check and check.

Impeach AND indict!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:24 PM

10. Article II, Sect. 4 is ONLY this

Article II

Section 4.


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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii


Not that second paragraph as noted in the above post.

ETA - the bigger issue is that "impeachment" is only one part (basically an indictment done by the House). The trial and "removal" happens in the Senate and that doesn't seem to be do-able (at least at this moment).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:33 PM

15. Sadly, you are right. Too bad we, the people, can't charge the senate with dereliction of duty.

But, apparently they aren't concerned about such trivial things as rules and laws.

And, like I said, that 2nd part outlines what is meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. Without definition, it's just a string of words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:41 PM

19. "Without definition, it's just a string of words."

And sadly, thanks to the media/pundits, not really having clarification or examples of the terms, makes it difficult to come up with charges that might be applicable. Of course if you look at past Articles of Impeachment, you can get an idea of where the authors of them were going... I would expect that the framers knew there were so many things considered "crime" that to enumerate them in the Constitution would make the document into an encyclopedia, thus the generic statement. To wit: stealing a pencil from one of the WH staff, probably not. Stealing $10 million from the treasury, you bet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:43 PM

20. We are living in strange, dangerous and frightening times, that's for sure.

I wonder if we will ever get things back on track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:49 PM

23. I have posted before that

our whole system of government is operating under an "honor system". The minute that "honor" is breached, we're through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:30 PM

13. "... refusal to obey a lawful order."?

Where did that definition come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:34 PM

16. It's a part of what is meant by 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Kind of a catch all definition.

At last that's my take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:47 PM

21. Although I am not in the military, it almost looks like something that is part of military code

I know in my agency, we had a "Code of Conduct" and some of that type of language was also part of that. Having been a supervisor, that was the type term used when you direct (order) an employee to (lawfully) carry out a work assignment and they refuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 07:18 AM

51. Plucked from ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:35 PM

17. Yep, trump is guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:49 PM

22. Impeachment by itself does not remove a president from office.

It seems like I've typed that exact line a thousand times now.
Trump is NOT going to be convicted by the Senate and once that happens he will be constantly crowing about how he was found innocent of 'fake' impeachment charges.
He has just 2 years left in his term and unless Trump resigns he could simply run out the clock. I think there is a good chance he will simply choose not to run, declaring his presidency the greatest in history and that there is a massive Liberal/media conspiracy against him.
Besides, would it really be sporting to run against a battered Trump?
No, it would be more of a contest to run against a Mitt Romney who has become critical of Trump.

No matter what, this is going to be an interesting year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:50 PM

24. People shouldn't add unlabeled editorial content

to the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 08:56 PM

26. Agreed. That's disturbing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Codeine (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:05 AM

47. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:05 PM

27. CONDUCT UNBECOMING

Got that one nailed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:21 PM

31. The remedy is to stomp Republicans into oblivion in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pepsidog (Reply #31)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:14 PM

38. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:27 PM

32. Looks like The Asset checks every box in the second paragraph to qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 09:32 PM

33. No doubt

Perhaps the use of an * would have made that clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:06 AM

48. The second paragraph is totally made up and without any legal effect or significance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:05 PM

36. AOT, K!

"All of them, Katie" -- a reference to $arah Palin's response when asked by Katie Couric which periodicals she read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:24 PM

40. Afghanistan, Belarus, and Montenegro

What we have are three instances—Afghanistan, Belarus, and Montenegro—when Donald Trump has promoted propaganda embraced by no one in the world except Vladimir Putin. Here is Chuck Rosenberg, former DEA administrator, commenting on what that means:


"I don’t mean to be an alarmist but...POTUS is echoing directly the line of the Kremlin on a whole bunch of things.... this is something U.S. Intel officials have to understand: why is the Pres. saying what hes saying?"- Chuck Rosenberg w/ @NicolleDWallace - WashingtonMonthly

When it's hard to understand how something can be so complicated, it's very possible that the answer you seek is the simplest one.

What else would explain his secret one-on-one meetings with Putin behind closed doors.

RUSSIAN
ASSET

TRAITOR

If Trump Is Not a Russian Asset, What Explains His Behavior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:29 PM

41. Exactly! He must be removed and NOW!

I'm so sick of overly cautious democrats suggesting we should look the other way from this extremely dangerous situation we're in because of Bill Clinton or whatever bullshit justification is said. We are all in danger with him in that house! Period! Look at what he's willing to do, how far he's willing to go just to distract, deflect, or satisfy his fellow deplorables like limbaugh. He doesn't give 2 shits about this country or anyone in it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ecstatic (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 11:03 PM

44. He only cares

about himself and his sick ass base, which is a MINORITY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2019, 10:48 PM

42. High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Donald

Perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, refusal to obey a lawful order. I can think of numerous examples of all but "refusal to obey a lawful order" and possibly bribery, although I'm sure he has done that as well - I believe we just don't have evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:44 AM

46. k and r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 07:18 AM

50. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread