Posted on Feb 11, 2021
Original Sources - Edmund Burke’s Summary of the Case Against Warren Hastings
329
3
2
1
1
0
Most of us know our Impeachment process originates in the constitution and may be exercised by the house and presented to the senate for trial. We're also aware of indictable charges of Treason and Bribery... but what in the world is that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?
Original Sources - Edmund Burke’s Summary of the Case Against Warren Hastings
Posted from originalsources.comPosted in these groups: 
Congress
United States Senate
Congress United States Senate
Edited 4 y ago
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
My understanding of this whole impeachment thing:
The Constitution (U.S. Const. art. II,§9) is a very short read about Impeachment of the POTUS & VPOTUS. It's easy to understand by just about anyone - except for that "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" thing. Where did our founders come up with that?
The English Parliament brought Impeachment about in the late 14th century as a way to joust with the king's inner-circle of ministers and officials; the king was exempt. His entourage, however, were subject to Impeachment, or even worse, Bills-of-Attainder. The Parliament now had a political weapon to battle with the king.
Given that English Parliament’s history, and the fact that our founders specifically prohibited Bills of Attainder (U.S. Const. art. I,§9) we can take a look at the things that justify impeachment.
The President or VP can be impeached for the very-real crimes of Treason; Bribery; and the very-nebulous "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors? The Constitutional Convention left the debate about impeachment within the Executive Branch to linger to the last days of the convention. In the hot summer of 1787 (with no A/C in Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House) a compromise was reached and the delegates added "High Crimes & Misdemeanors”... the suggestion offered by George Mason; art. II,§9 was done.
As the convention did this in the summer of 1787, "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" was a buzz-phrase in many places around the English-speaking world. The buzz was a result of Britain’s Edmund Burke in his role as lead prosecutor in the ultimately-unsuccessful impeachment of Warren Hastings (then Governor General of Bengal, India).
So, what are we left with? We have Impeachment that can be wielded as a political-weapon against officials with indictments for very-real crimes or that pesky & nebulous "High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The real-crime stuff is easy (in a judicial sense). The HC&M, unfortunately, is a political food-fight with potentially very-bad consequences for us.
I’ll be asking myself a few questions before I go to the polls next time:
“Does my representative really represent me in the aggregate on issues?”
“Does he/she work and play well with others (in the spirit of bipartisanship)”
... and an assessment of the likelihood they will become part of the problem (low score Wins)
Term-Limits anyone?
The Constitution (U.S. Const. art. II,§9) is a very short read about Impeachment of the POTUS & VPOTUS. It's easy to understand by just about anyone - except for that "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" thing. Where did our founders come up with that?
The English Parliament brought Impeachment about in the late 14th century as a way to joust with the king's inner-circle of ministers and officials; the king was exempt. His entourage, however, were subject to Impeachment, or even worse, Bills-of-Attainder. The Parliament now had a political weapon to battle with the king.
Given that English Parliament’s history, and the fact that our founders specifically prohibited Bills of Attainder (U.S. Const. art. I,§9) we can take a look at the things that justify impeachment.
The President or VP can be impeached for the very-real crimes of Treason; Bribery; and the very-nebulous "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".
What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors? The Constitutional Convention left the debate about impeachment within the Executive Branch to linger to the last days of the convention. In the hot summer of 1787 (with no A/C in Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House) a compromise was reached and the delegates added "High Crimes & Misdemeanors”... the suggestion offered by George Mason; art. II,§9 was done.
As the convention did this in the summer of 1787, "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" was a buzz-phrase in many places around the English-speaking world. The buzz was a result of Britain’s Edmund Burke in his role as lead prosecutor in the ultimately-unsuccessful impeachment of Warren Hastings (then Governor General of Bengal, India).
So, what are we left with? We have Impeachment that can be wielded as a political-weapon against officials with indictments for very-real crimes or that pesky & nebulous "High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The real-crime stuff is easy (in a judicial sense). The HC&M, unfortunately, is a political food-fight with potentially very-bad consequences for us.
I’ll be asking myself a few questions before I go to the polls next time:
“Does my representative really represent me in the aggregate on issues?”
“Does he/she work and play well with others (in the spirit of bipartisanship)”
... and an assessment of the likelihood they will become part of the problem (low score Wins)
Term-Limits anyone?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google