Would an official who directly curtailed a Right, as enumerated in the Constitution, be considered a High Crime or Misdemeanor?

2022-05-01T00:10:54-04:00

Let us say that an official of the Government did something that directly curtailed a Right, as enumerated in the Constitution. For example, this person establishes an official religion for the United States and enacts a law that forces everybody to follow it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2022 12:49 AM

2022-05-01T00:49:27-04:00

Depends on what the statute would say the level of crime it is. Not to mention that this would never happen as the Constitution clearly separates Church and State and the SCOTUS would shoot this down as being illegal. Now, I have to ask: what real life situation creates this hypothetical question?

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made May 1 at 2022 12:59 AM

2022-05-01T00:59:53-04:00

Congress abridges Constitutional rights on the regular. Unless it was done with the clear intent and PURPOSE of abridging the right, then not likely the be considered nsidered a high crime or misdemeanor.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 1 at 2022 1:03 AM

2022-05-01T01:03:47-04:00

A person of unique authority and a political figure who circumvents justice.

Response by Maj John Bell made May 1 at 2022 9:41 AM

2022-05-01T09:41:58-04:00

If the question is asked as a justification for impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the House of Representatives decides "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are when they draft articles of impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political act. The only questions are will the House reach the number of "aye" votes to refer the charges to the Senate? and will the Senate reach the number of "aye" votes to convict and "punish" the subject of the proceeding with any or all of the options they have.

Back to your question:

1) No single person may enact a law.

2) The Constitution makes no allowance for establishment of a state religion. It expressly forbids such an act.

3) If such a person acting as head of the executive branch or a regulatory agency tried to claim they were enacting such a regulation under existing law, it would go absolutely nowhere under the federal rule making process that is required of regulatory bodies in the U.S. unless Congress approves. [Return to step 2)]

Finally, if all else fails

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.

No less true today than 246 years ago.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis made May 1 at 2022 12:54 PM

2022-05-01T12:54:28-04:00

Okay. The example is a bit facetious. With that said, the President could sign an Executive Order, create an Agency (or an office withing an Agency, or direct that a particular Agency create an office within it), with a net effect of curtailing a Constitutional Right. That might need some cooperation from Congress, but let's say the President has an amenable Congress.

Admittedly, impeachment is a political, vice legal, action. Nonetheless, if another Congress (different from the one that cooperated with the President, earlier) wanted to construe such actions as impeachable, then would it hold much water in the Public's eye?

Response by SMSgt Bob W. made May 2 at 2022 12:52 AM

2022-05-02T00:52:42-04:00

Tim,
People are subjected to it daily--workplaces limit discussion of certain topics; to get into a military you must subject your vehicle to search at any time for any reason [remember gate checks for "drugs"].