(12-13-2019, 08:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(12-13-2019, 10:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: "High crime" is a term going back to the 1300s that has meant a LOT of things and it's older than what we would call "criminal law".  It basically means "doing a job in government, but doing it really poorly."

Like you said, political.  Subjective.

When the founders borrowed the phrase, I don't think they meant to say, "only impeach if the guy does something that a civilian would be tried and punished for." Unfortunately, we've begun to use the word "crime" in a new and more specific context, and it keeps the masses of American people from understanding what the Founders wanted.

Hamilton wrote that the Supreme court could not be trusted with trying impeachments because many of the judges would have been appointed by the sitting President.  He wrote that the Senate would think in terms of politics, but that their political constraints would be separate from the President's, so they could be impartial.  Hamilton was writing before Washington became President, and Washington was about to appoint *all* of the judges.  And he was writing at a time when the Senators were selected by state legislatures - with the upper house and the lower house of the state legislature having different sets of people voting for them.  That's not the case now.  When the Trump campaign tries to win Florida, he's using the same strategies and talking to the same voters that a candidate for Senator from Florida would use. And the Republican candidate for Senate doesn't just want to win his race, he wants his party to win and keep as many senate seats as possible, just as the Republican candidate for president wants to win as many states as possible. So the Senate is no longer a separate base of power.

We were taught in civics class that the branches of government were supposed to check each other's power, but since 1994 this has not been true.  The real power divide is no longer a three way contest between President, Congress, and Courts with rules and laws.  It's just a two way struggle between Republicans and Democrats and the only rule is refraining from violence.  And let us all hope that one rule holds.

Not true.  The founders specifically decided AGAINST using the term maladministration.  In full context, Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors mainly refers to egregious violations of the oath of office or betraying the country.

Also not true. To suggest it was clearly understood as you describe is purely rhetorical. You will find the founders debating this topic. Not just at it's inception, but throughout the history of impeachment in this nation. The maladministration change was to cut back on subjective impeachments, since it was apparent that any disagreement on policy could be considered maladministration. Changing it to high crimes and misdemeanors was meant to avoid impeachment due to policy differences. 

Misdemeanor historically referenced character flaws (even though it now has been incorporated into our legal system). Demeanor references one's outward behavior. A mis-demeanor referenced outward behaviors that were considered inappropriate (e.g. public drunkenness, lewdness). It would not have been unreasonable for there to be an impeachment due to some kind of serious character deficiency. It wasn't typically used that way, except in cases where it arguably affected someone's ability to do their duty. However, even when it was, it rarely succeeded unless it was accompanied by a high crime. The charges brought against Trump fit within the historical use of impeachment, but it is clearly motivated by politics, not any real criminality. It's understandable why Republicans are against the trumped up charges, but also not like this is new in American politics. It would only be new if it worked. It won't.

---