|
In response to
"Dawson, I responded on B2. -- (link)"
by
pmb
|
Thanks. Totally familiar with the legal genesis of 25A. The issue is that it was ratified over the course of what 25 years by the states
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
Sep 25 '19, 12:45
|
My reading does not create any conflict--it provides procedures for removal for causes of unfitness (he's crazy, he's deranged) (by the cabinet) and for causes of "high crimes and misdemeanors) (by the congress).
There is no conflict, therefore no need to inquire as to legislative history.
As I noted by pointing with deference to Sunstein's reading, I am certainly not arguing that legal criminality is what the constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors" (it would seem odd, in fact, to give the legislature that power via the via of enacting legislation to fix their power to whatever they wanted it to be
(to exemplify: Let's assume Congress wants to impeach the president because he has offended the nation, but thinks that only a legally criminal offense is impeachable, they could just pass a criminal statute against offending the president (or come with other scenarios that don't raise 1A concerns--wearing a red tie)).
Surely, it cannot be the law congress can, by enacting a criminal statute, define the meaning of the words "high crimes and misdemeanors"--that term had a term as it was understood in 1789 and it was for the courts to interpret to the extent there is a question if something qualifies
BUT the flipside of that argument HAS to be that "high crimes and misdemeanors" has some meaning that cannot encompass something so vague as to be no standard at all (such as "offended the nation", which is what began this conversation, and the example I'm focused on).
We can debate other examples beyond "legal criminality" that I"m sure were probably covered based on the meaning of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in 1789. But "appointing people who were corrupt or did a poor job" seems like a particularly bad example for your side to start this examination with, given that Article II's Appointments Clause already provides for a solution to that problem too--not confirm those appointments. It would, again, seem odd to permit the Congress to backdoor impeachment in such a fashion.
|
Responses:
|