Impeachment?

i was just wondering, when it comes to impeachment, whats the difference between a misdimeanor and a high crime.|||Interpretation. It changes with the times. So, since the Constitution doesn't define High Crimes it's up to society to determine what that is.|||I think it needs to involve fruit|||Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.|||george bush can die! ahhh viva la revolution!|||That's where some of the controversy came from. Does "High crimes and misdemeanors" mean "high crimes" and ordinary "misdemeanors", or does it mean "high crimes" and "high misdemeanors"?





Bottom line, in Clinton's case, perjury was done and that is a felony, which is definitely a "high crime" or at least higher than any "misdemeanor", even a "high misdemeanor" (whatever that is).





Also, keep in mind, that Clinton deliberately took the stand when he did not have to and deliberately lied. He was not backed into a corner and caught off guard; his actions were premediated and deliberate.|||High Crimes i think also refures to breaking the Constitution that the president has sworn to uphold during his oath of office.





bush has broken that oath on a number of occaisons, going so far as to call the constitution "just an piece of paper"





illegal wire taps, turning US citizens into "enemy combatents" there are others that legal schollars have written about too|||No US President has been convicted. So, the Senate has not had to apply the terms. They are subject to opinon.|||misdimeaner = B J





High Crimes = Illegal wiretapping


election fraud in 2000 and 2004


the overt lies used to justify pre-emptive war on Iraq


ongoing commission of war crimes and torture


the tragic failures in the lead-up to and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina


and lesser-known but equally alarming offences of propaganda and disinformation, illegal spying, environmental destruction, and the violation of the separation of church and state|||A misdemeanor is a minor crime usually carrying a sentence of less than a year in prison. A high crime is open to interpretation. Basically if you look at the debate of the founders they felt that the President could only be removed and should be for any crime. The president can't be charged with a crime so they need to remove him first. Of course people try to make all kinds of claims about every president, but basically there have been probably 20 presidents that would qualify, but most Congresses don't see enough value in removing the president for these things or feel that it would be bad for the country.|||They could write another book of revelations on the clintons, then impeach Hillary before she gets a shot at the national elections .Then if found guilty of all she is direct, or linked with as an accomplice, put away. everyone knows the difference of misdimeanor, and felony.|||According to the Constitution: "...Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Treason and Bribery are clear. The definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was left intentionally vague by the founders but is generally considered to refer to misconduct or a violation of the public trust that is injurious to society. They are not limited to statutory violations (breaking regular laws).





In Federalist No. 65 [2], Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:





"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"





James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that the President:





"Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"





The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a President. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:





"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."





A more recent writing reinforces the vague definition of an impeachable offense. In a House Judiciary sub-committee panel discussion on the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Charles Canaday, (R) Florida wrote [3]:





"The House has never in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding adopted either a comprehensive definition of high crimes and misdemeanors or a catalogue of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of federal officials on a case by case basis..."





Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.