Talk:High crimes and misdemeanors

Perjury

The section of text I changed originally read: "Some felt that the act of perjury, a federal crime, certainly rose to that level. Others felt that perjury, while illegal, did not reach that level." This is with regard to the section on former President Clinton.

This passage of text had a clearly biased tone in my judgement. Each sentence appears designed to explain each argument with equal weight. However, the second sentence is redundant in repeating that perjury is "illegal," as the previous sentence had already identified it as "a federal crime." Also, the word "certainly" in the first sentence seems to be placed in a purely editorial context, designed to add extra weight to the pro-impeachment argument. And finally, while the second sentence identifies that Clinton supporters disagree with that argument (i.e. "did not reach that level"), it does not the counter-argument as to -why- they disagree. It seems clear that whomever wrote that two-sentence passage had a pre-drawn conclusion, and wanted to lead the reader to that same conclusion.

Furthermore, that passage, while likely biased, did not do justice to either the pro- or anti- impeachment arguments. This point may admittedly be more subjective on my part, but it seemed to be rather haphazardly thrown together in a rush. Perhaps this was bias or simply laziness; either way, I felt it needed a re-write. I did my best to state both arguments with equal weight as I understand them, though feel free to tweak it if you feel I was unfair to either side.

I also went ahead and added the "neutrality review" tag to further ensure fairness, just in case my small edits are seen as too concise or weighted toward one side or the other. You can probably remove this tag if you think it's unnecessary; I just wanted to play it safe since this is considered a very contentious issue in modern political discourse.

Either way, I've been doing my thesis paper on the history of impeachment, so I hope what little insight I could provide will be regarded as helpful. =)

--Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.104.190 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Judges Not Subject to Same Standard as Presidents

The article seems to go off course to me. It cites the first impeachment of a judge to support its definition of "high crimes and misdemanours" but judges are not subject to that Article II, Section 4 standard which applies to the President. Rather, pursuant to Article III, Section 1, judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour." Thus, a judge can be removed from office for anything that does not constitute "good behaviour."

That is quite a different standard for the Presidential criteria restricted to "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Further, the distinction is one that makes sense. Presidents are elected for expressly limited terms and judges are appointed for potentially unlimited terms. Removing an elected President who is subject to either reelection or Constitutional termination of his terms might logically be more restricted than the removal of an appointed judge who has no natural limitation to his term other than death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithDB (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

In the article the following paragraph is listed as needing a citation:

"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."

The citation itself is from United States v Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 1, 159 (No 14, 693) (C.C.D. Va 1807), and can be seen on the Internet here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/marshallopinion.html . However, I am grossly unfamiliar with citation formatting. Will someone who is more familiar add this in? Thanks. 2602:306:CEC8:5760:65A5:B749:3946:808D (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done Davemck (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction over the meaning of the adjective "high"

I visited this page specifically to get a better understanding of whether "high" referred to a crime's seriousness or had some other, more archaic meaning.

Most of the article appears to be an explanation that it is the latter. A behavior is a "high" crime if it is an act "by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons." "Some" such acts may be "[common or universal] crimes. Others [are] not."

However, in the middle of the article, there is a sentence that seems to run directly opposed to this whole line of reasoning. It states: "High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor."

This ought to be resolved conclusively if possible. There seem to be three possibilities:

1. (Least likely) By the time of the Constitutional Convention, "high" actually took on a meaning of seriousness as well as a meaning that simply meant that it was attached to officialdom. This does not seem to be supported by the rest of the artcile or by the portion of the Starr report that is linked. But it is the apparent meaning of the sentence as written now. That is: it separates a "high crime" by an official from a "misdemeanor" by an official.

2. (Plausible) The adjective "high" applies to both crimes and misdemeanors equally, and the nouns denote a difference in offense severity. The framers of the US Constitution were adopting a meaning that separated "high crimes" from "high misdemeanors". "High crimes" were very serious misdeeds of public officials, and "high misdemeanors" were less serious misdeeds. Both were colored by their official character, and so either could be distinct from a normal, common "crime" or "misdemeanor", but they mirrored the usual use of those terms as being a distinction of severity. This has some support in the rest of the article text, since the article also puts forward the idea that both terms taken together amount to "any reason whatsoever". This can be read to mean "for reasons major and minor, as the political body sees fit". In this case, the sentence just needs to be tweaked to show that it is talking about "high [official] crimes", which are super serious misdeeds of office, and "high [official] misdemeanors", which are less serious misdeeds of office.

3. (Likely) The framers' adjective "high" means of office and applies to both crimes and misdemeanors, but the different nouns do not denote a difference in severity. Rather, they denote a difference in the character of the misdeed. In this case, the section needs to be substantially reworked. The distinction might take one of two forms. Either:

3(a): A "high crime" is any codified offense that is committed by a public official, whether or not it would be possible for a common citizen to commit the crime. If the official has committed a truly common crime, it becomes a "high" crime simply by virtue of the fact that the person's private conduct has sullied their public trust. The "high crime" could well be an act that is normally prosecuted as "misdemeanor" rather than, say, a "felony".

(or)

3(b): A "high crime" is a crime that can only arise out of a situation of public office or public trust. The impeachment process is reserved for "high crimes", whereas a normal prosecution would be carried out against public officials who would commit common crimes not arising from abuse of office.

Both 3(a) and 3(b): A "high misdemeanor" is an official act that is explicitly non-criminal in nature. But it is so odious, either politically or administratively, that the impeaching body may feel that it warrants removal from office.

(3) Seems to have the most logical coherence on face. And there is some support for the idea of (3) in the rest of the article. The following sentence about the Clinton impeachment, while not properly sourced, seems to roughly describe a debate between 3(a) and 3(b): "Some felt[who?] that the act of perjury, a federal crime, rose to that level. Others felt[who?] 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."

However, it is not a slam dunk. The Starr report linked as the second reference cites Blackstone in a way that does not completely resolve the problem. "The 'first and principal' high misdemeanor, according to Blackstone, was 'mal-administration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment,' usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment." This fits with 3(b). But the same paragraph states that Blackstone "included 'high misdemeanors' as one term for positive offenses 'against the king and government.' " If "positive offenses" can be read as denoting or including offenses that are specifically prohibited by law, then that opens up the possibility of either (2) or 3(a). In fact, to the extent that deliberate action against the Crown may have been considered the most serious possible wrong, it even leaves the door open to possibility (1). "High" could be about severity, but it was a severity only possible to achieve fully when in a position of the Crown's trust.

AdamColligan (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AdamColligan, The offending sentence appears to have been removed. I've consequently removed the contradict template. CThomas³ (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's impeachment

"Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War (whom the Tenure of Office Act was largely designed to protect), from office and replaced him with General Ulysses S. Grant." According to the page on Andrew Johnson's impeachment and the page on Thomas Lorenzo, this is incorrect. It was his attempt to replace Stanton with Lorenzo Thomas that led to his impeachment. Cicelyjune (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High crimes and misdemeanors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104111013/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"High" in "high crimes"

Whilst the world is watching, wondering whether or not the president of the U.S. shall or should be removed, most active Law Professionals - including me - are still deliberating (unless you see it from a political eye) if the president's actions deem him to be doomed. I would like to take a crack at "high crimes". My opinion is that with great power comes great responsibility. The greater the power a state or country relinquishes to a natural person, the greater the prohibition for that person to commit the least infraction a common person may not. So if it is a matter of conduct, say not to show table manners, the person in question is put to public trial. Such as a movie star would. The act itself is not a crime but due to his/her status, it is asif it were a crime because of the oath that is taken... The Jurist Panel (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

REMOVE: "High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only 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," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

REPLACE WITH: The text of the constitution was designed to leave as little interpretation as possible. It's possible, however, that the framers understood that future laws that could constitute impeachment had yet to be constructed and therefore they added "or other high crimes and misdemeanors" to encapsulate offenses that were akin to that of "Treason" or "Bribery". High crimes are not necessarily felonies, but are not necessarily exclusive to members of office, as the impeachment process itself is. It's possible that the framers listed "Treason" and "Bribery" before high crimes and misdemeanors to give contextual reference to impeachable offenses. This school of thought is supported by the constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz. It would also be viable to suggest that the "misdemeanors" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not impeachable offenses alone, as the framers chose the words "Treason" and "Bribery" to be followed by the word "or", then chose "high crimes" to be followed by the word "and" instead of another "or" prior to "misdemeanors", possibly suggesting that a misdemeanor alone wouldn't support an impeachment and removal of a President, Vice President, or any other civil Officer.

CHANGE: In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

TO: In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." The ambiguity of Hamilton's writings could be caused by the fact that the definition of impeachable offenses had already been established within the constitution, and Hamilton may have wanted to clarify that these offenses would also need to proceed from the misconduct of the public trust to become grounds for impeachment and removal of an elected official. The term "offense" means any criminal offense, other than an offense triable by court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal, which is in violation of an Act of Congress and is triable in any court established by Act of Congress per 18 USC §3156 (2019). Human On 3rd Planet (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for pretty blatant editorializing and offering personal analysis, contrary to WP:NOR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: "blatant editorializing"? I haven't made any blatant comments or expressed opinions as being represented by Wikipedia. If you believe the first sentence specifically is an opinion then I suggest you lookup the very definition of constitution. Almost every edit in this article is "blatant editorializing". Amazing to see a true leftist out in shining bright colors. I see views opposed to mine and I at least do research and see what impartial conclusions I can come to independently. "offering personal analysis"? What do you think the individual before me was doing? At least Richard-of-Earth is honest with their edits, stating "The thing to avoid is stating conclusions and interpretations in Wikipedia's voice." The word "high" being used in high crimes and misdemeanors being defined as "is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons." in question is currently being represented as a Wikipedia conclusion from the Constitution and referencing the Constitution Society opinion on the matter because it never states it as an opinion and never mentions that the origin of that opinion came from there. When I represented the very text described in the Constitution (referenced in the paragraph before so not needing another reference), I made sure to use key words like "it's possible", "could be", and "may have", whereas the other user did not. I also stated that the school of thought around those interpretations (stating it as a school of thought is also not what the other user did) is supported by a constitutional scholar clearing the interpretation being viewed as Wikipedia's own. I also cited the transcript that contains all of the scholar's arguments that concretely support that claim. I met the specific requirements to ensure I am not making a declarative interpretation or conclusion using Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, I didn't remove anything in the second edit, I only added to it and in doing so I cited United Sates Code that defines a very term being quoted. These are obvious examples of properly cited sources that properly support the edits. It's my belief that I clearly met the requirements for these edits to take place. The very fact that you're accusing me WP:NOR is not only ignorant, but plain misconduct of whatever superior editorial privileges you have. This type of behavior is the reason why Wikipedia is a poor source for accurate information.

References

Heavily leftist article

This article doesn't reflect the true arguments on both sides and only reflects that of MSM and popular arguments made from far leftists. It ignores the true constitutional scholarly inputs like that of Alan Dershowitz. Even though Alan disagrees with the current president on nearly every policy to an extreme level, the scholar still values the constitution and the federalist papers ability to ratify it. There needs to come a time when people can put their policy differences aside and fall back on the constitution. I never once thought of impeaching Obama even though I couldn't stand his policies. Obama has withheld aid with quid pro quo conditions with a reelection year following. Nobody on the right was fighting to impeach or looking for any possible crime even. The level of hypocrisy that those who are obviously in control of the edits have is astounding and the public doesn't benefit from you guys blocking out multiple points of view. If you believe I'm wrong then just allow me to enter this information as opinion and let the people at least see it. They should see both sides equally represented if the terms are as ambiguous as everyone editing this claims them to be. --Human On 3rd Planet (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Human On 3rd Planet: The protection on the article expires in a couple of days. You can fix it all you want after that. Your removal of the unsourced stuff in the lead and stuff that does not summarize was righteous. The thing to avoid is stating conclusions and interpretations in Wikipedia's voice. Your welcome to remove anything that already does that in the article as it is. Too may quotes is not good either, so paraphrasing and summarizing Wikipedia:Reliable sources:reliable, published sources is best. I think the article could benefit from a better outline. Currently it has two sections "Britain" and "United States". Perhaps the US section could be broken down into smaller sections. If you feel the article is hopeless as it is, you could propose a full rewrite by creating a new article as a userspace draft at User:Human On 3rd Planet/sandbox/High crimes and misdemeanors. I myself do not like writing prose. It takes me too long to write, I overthink it, and then I am never happy with the result. I will fix citations and remove WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED and blatant vandalism as my contribution to Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Britain

The section on Britain starts out by saying that the first Earl of Suffolk was the next to allege charges under this title. Isn't this "coming in in the middle," as there's no explanation of those earlier cases? JDZeff (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)