your great skills in language match your ignorance of law

Post #285,017 by boxley 5/21/07 11:52:02 AM Reply	your great skills in language match your ignorance of law [link\|http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/feloniesmisdemeanors.htm\|http://www.hmichaels...smisdemeanors.htm] gross and abusive is not high. High crimes and misdeameanors means exactly that. No such animal as a high misdemeanor. As for the rest of your whining, if Clinton had done what he should have done, resign before being impeached as Nixon did, who would be president today? Not Bush thats for sure. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,021 by admin 5/21/07 12:02:27 PM Reply	Another article about it: [link\|http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm\|http://www.constitut...t/high_crimes.htm] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #285,022 by boxley 5/21/07 12:12:26 PM Reply	I like this one better [link\|http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129268\|http://findarticles....7_v50/ai_21129268] For more than six hundred years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has referred exclusively to conduct requiring impeachment. Though any serious felony will do, impeachment will not result in a prison sentence or beheading. An impeachment conviction in the Senate merely removes a statesman from his office of "honor, trust, or profit" with the United States. The criminal law is for personal punishment; impeachment is for keeping statesmen virtuous. Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation." The list goes on. Notably, none of these are crimes -- or even misdemeanors -- under the criminal law. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his great Commentaries on the Constitution, it is not only "crimes of a strictly legal character" that are impeachable offenses, but also political offenses, growing out of "personal misconduct . . . so various" that they "must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty." kinda matches what happened thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,047 by Seamus 5/21/07 7:04:50 PM Reply	In the end all that matters is what congress thinks of as high crimes and misdemeanors. Since the constitution has ratified it has been rarely used. You may think it should be used more, but the repos knew they didn't have the votes, but they went forward anyways to appease the social conservatives. If the social conservatives were really interested in change the culture in America, why was Clinton the only politician with questionable sexual ethics the only one they chose to fight? Why after the impeachment failed did they not continue their quest to rid DC of sexual impropriety? Because they only cared about getting Clinton out of office. Impeachment is/has become a political tool to remove dangerous presidents. Clinton was not a dangerous president, Bush certainly is. Seamus
Post #285,061 by Another Scott 5/21/07 9:36:43 PM Reply	OTOH, Posner's book covers this stuff, too. [link\|http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/posnerr/anaos.htm\|Complete Review] has a summary of various reviews, and their own. You can read Posner's opinion by searching for "misdemeanor" in the book at [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674003918/ref=nosim/completereview\|Amazon]. It's been a while since I read it, but Posner didn't think it was as cut and dried as your excerpt. The phrase was deliberately vague. ([link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner\|Richard A. Posner] is a federal judge.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #285,068 by boxley 5/21/07 10:05:38 PM Reply	dont think much of posner's ideas Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,072 by Another Scott 5/21/07 10:11:13 PM Reply	Different strokes. :-)
Post #285,074 by boxley 5/21/07 10:18:37 PM Reply	Im more aligned with Blackstone, Gerry Spence and Pliskin Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,080 by bepatient 5/21/07 10:30:09 PM Reply	Snake Plisken, I heard you were dead. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #285,081 by boxley 5/21/07 10:38:10 PM Reply	sshhh! Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,023 by Another Scott 5/21/07 12:13:03 PM Reply	Interesting, but zooks that's broad...
Post #285,026 by boxley 5/21/07 12:26:33 PM Reply	think about it, Gore would have been president for 2 years so the anti clinton backlash wouldnt be there. Unless he truly screwed the pooch its hard to unseat a sitting president. I dont think bush would have beat President Gore in 2000. So because of selfishness of Clinton we got 12 years of bush. And everyone here is cheering that decision thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #285,029 by Another Scott 5/21/07 12:57:13 PM Reply	Nope. If Clinton had resigned or been pushed out, it would have set the precedent, and the demand, for the Republican leadership in Congress to be brought up on charges of various sorts. It wouldn't have been easy for Gore (or anyone) to work in such an environment. They were trying to tar Gore with the same brush (remember the Buddhist temple stuff?). A President should only be removed, or leave, when he doesn't have some support of the people and some of the Congress. Clinton's support among the people was very high at the time, and the Democrats weren't pushing for him to go. We got 8 years of Bush for various reasons - impeachment wasn't the biggest of them, IMO. Gerry, Jimmy, and GHWB show that it's not that difficult to remove a sitting President if the conditions are right. It doesn't take a disaster - Gore probably would have had trouble keeping the job. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!