(09-06-2018, 01:38 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(09-06-2018, 01:35 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Of course that's what I'm looking at because that's all that should matter. If we intend to impeach Presidents because we simply don't like what they're doing, you'll have half of the population pushing for impeachment every year. To impeach on the "spirit of the law" would be equivalent to a cop pulling you over for speeding because you were going to speed limit but he thought you looked like you were speeding. As soon as you impeach for conduct that is legal, we'll never see another full-term President.

False.  First, you're misstating my argument.  The question is, did the President violate the public trust (this is the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors).  It's a more than just "he did something we didn't like".  It has to be an abuse of power or corruption or something similar.  Second, that's where the 2/3 of the senate threshhold comes in.  A rational House wouldn't vote to impeach unless they believe their arguments will convince 2/3 of senators.  This means that the argument would transcend partisanship.

It absolutely is not the original meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The complete phrase is, "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase literally equates "high crimes and misdemeanors" with treason and bribery. Which crime has Trump committed equal in status to treason or bribery? 

You're treating when Hamilton spoke about unbecoming conduct that may violate public trust with being synonymous with the literal definition from the constitution. Hamilton's statement was in regard to violating public trust by committing crimes. It isn't about losing trust from some of the public. The argument has always been if any crime is sufficient or if "high crimes" included more serious crimes.

"Abuse of power or corruption" is a loose definition you apply to it to encompass whatever you want. Abuse of power is subjective unless considering cases that violate law. Corruption is violating law.

---