Showing posts with label high crimes and misdemeanors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high crimes and misdemeanors. Show all posts

Thursday, April 18, 2019

"high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as a Term of Art


In the interpretation of enacted law terms of art, for example, “third degree of consanguinity,” have a special place.  Just how special is debated: the degree of the specialness, the ways in which are special, and the special methods for unpacking their meaning. 

The term of art status of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” may become salient.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Is Impeachment Mandatory?



The distinguished Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein has recently argued, in a widely published opinion piece, that if a US president has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” then Congress is obligated to impeach. https://news.yahoo.com/impeachment-mandatory-130024433.html.  The “support and defend the Constitution” clause of their oath of office imposes the duty on upon each and every member of the House of Representatives to vote to impeach if the constitutional predicate is satisfied. 

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Should President Pence be Impeached with Vice President Trump in the Wings?


Put aside for a moment the specific impeachment counts with which President Pence has been charged by the House, and turn to the opinion makers’ hot question: will we or won’t we be better off if Donald Trump became president following a vote of the Senate to convict Pence and remove him from office?

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Was Trump’s criticism of Sessions for permitting indictments of Republican House members a high crime or misdemeanor?


The tweet in question:

(1)    “Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…..”

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Impeachment for Pre-Innaguration Conduct II

In addition to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon, there have been 17 other impeachments voted by the House, mostly of federal judges. (8 were convicted by the Senate; some fended that off by resignation.) The charges in all 19 cases involved conduct while in office.

In a post of April 5, 2017, I suggested that the question of impeachment for conduct prior to taking office was edging towards a relevance more than academic.See http://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/2017/04/impeachment-for-acts-prior-to-taking.html.


In that post I argued that any suggestion to a foreign power of an in-office quid pro quo would bring the case within the "misconduct in office" category, whether or not the president came through with the quid pro quo. I also suggested that even if exclusively pre-office, a sufficiently egregious high crime or misdemeanor should be grounds for impeachment, despite the absence of House precedent.  

I invite you again to think about these issues, as they seem now to be more than edging towards relevance.

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Was Trump’s “Russia, if you are listening, . . . “ Criminal? Impeachable?


On July 27, 2016, candidate Donald Trump asked Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s deleted emails. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” It is fair to say, I think, that the Russians, if they took him up on this, could expect Trump’s gratitude and whatever might flow therefrom in the future.  Did this constitute a violation of federal election law? If so, was it a criminal violation?  If so, was it an impeachable violation?

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Impeachment for Acts Prior to Taking Office?

It may be only an academic question, but one that has been edging  a little closer to the real world: Can the President of the United States can be impeached and convicted for acts committed before Inauguration Day?

Friday, November 7, 2014

Deceptive Truth: Kant, Sandel, & Bill Clinton


Occasioned by the suggestion of Sandel that it may sometimes be morally permissible to deceive people, so long as you do so without lying, I here examine such alleged truths as “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” After setting up the issues in Section 1, in Sections 2-4 I examine questions of language, communication, and truthfulness in assessing whether candidate deceptive truths really are true. These sections require little if any prior familiarity in the area. The fifth section, however, probably will be hard to follow unless you have some acquaintance with Kant’s ethics. Lacking that, you still may well be able to follow the Sections 6-8, and the final section on the Clinton impeachment has no prerequisites.