Why hasn't congress ever passed a law clarifying "High crimes and misdemeanors"?

[Razgovory]

What I said in the title.  "High Crimes and misdemeanors" is vague, why haven't we clarified it?

[Sheilbh]

Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.

[The Brain]

Is vagueness a problem here?

[alfred russel]

What would be the point? The house of reps has the constitutional role of impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors. A previous congress couldn't restrict that authority for a future congress by passing a law narrowing its scope, and obviously can't widen the authority.

[crazy canuck]

Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.

[Razgovory]

Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.

A political process and a list of agreed on "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not mutually exclusive.


At the moment it is a process that doesn't work.  The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from an office they are unfit to serve in.  The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.

[Valmy]

Because impeachment is a political not a legal process, as it should be.

Why should it be? Currently impeachment is the only check on the President. Besides that we are just dependent on a President's good intentions and personal sense of honor. It would be nice if the laws and rules a President was supposed to follow were clear. Without that we just get straight partisan votes for the most part, which renders impeachment all but pointless and toothless and thus unable to fulfill its Constitutional purpose and undermines the checks and balances.

I mean we may not be able to convict a guy who encouraged an insurrection.

[ulmont]

The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.

That's not the problem we have with the process.  The problem is *waves generally at GOP, specifically at the Quo Vadis GOP thread.*

[Valmy]

The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.

That's not the problem we have with the process.  The problem is *waves generally at GOP, specifically at the Quo Vadis GOP thread.*

Yeah but even in 1868 and 1998 it was not clear if what Johnson and Clinton did actually qualified for impeachment.

It was never so much "is the President guilty" but "is this high crimes and misdemeanors?" With no satisfying answer coming out of either procedure.

[Sheilbh]

A political process and a list of agreed on "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not mutually exclusive.

You'd just shift the debate from whether the issue someone's being impeached for is sufficiently serious for them to be impeached to whether it falls within that list. It would make it even more about process and technicalities and try to remove the politics from it so it's a technocratic process.

At the moment it is a process that doesn't work.  The purpose of impeachment is to remove a person from an office they are unfit to serve in.  The process might work a little better if everyone agrees on what is and isn't impeachable behavior.

It wouldn't work better. As I say you'd just get the arguments over whether it's in that list or is there a loophole. The reason it doesn't work is because the political system doesn't work, this is just a symptom like issues passing budgets or legislation or congressional oversight.

Why should it be? Currently impeachment is the only check on the President. Besides that we are just dependent on a President's good intentions and personal sense of honor. It would be nice if the laws and rules a President was supposed to follow were clear. Without that we just get straight partisan votes for the most part, which renders impeachment all but pointless and toothless and thus unable to fulfill its Constitutional purpose and undermines the checks and balances.

As above. You'd either remove the argument from politics so it would be about whether or not x was in the list or out on a loophole - which would break down on a straight partisan vote; or you remove the politicians and give it to the courts which I think would probably just exacerbate politicisation there.

Removing a legally elected head of state - the only nationwide elected office - is political and it should be a decision made by politicians who can face the consequences from voters. It's not a technocratic decision.

As above the fact your political system is kind of broke is the issue, not the process. Fiddling with formalities etc isn't going to help with that.

Yeah but even in 1868 and 1998 it was not clear if what Johnson and Clinton did actually qualified for impeachment.

Impeachment = what Congress considers sufficiently serious to remove a President.

[The Brain]

You have a reality where a US senator thinks that a publisher dropping them is a violation of the First Amendment. Any kind of legal subtlety is wasted on these people.

[Razgovory]

Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?

It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.

[Valmy]

Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?

It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.

No. It is a mechanism to prevent criminals from seizing the executive branch. It is far more severe than simply losing an election. It is a label that this person is abusing power and is a criminal and a tyrant.

I think that is the problem here. You think this is like some kind of parliamentary vote of no-confidence. It is not.

So a process that intended to be a criminal process should have laws. If it is a political process then the whole thing needs to be reworked because it is not designed to function that way. It would say something like the Congress can remove the President if they lack confidence in their leadership or something.

[grumbler]

Sheilbh, what do you think is the purpose of impeachment?

It's a mechanism to constitutionally remove a President from office. From my understanding (which is low but confident), the two ways that can happen are elections and impeachment.

No. It is a mechanism to prevent criminals from seizing the executive branch. It is far more severe than simply losing an election. It is a label that this person is abusing power and is a criminal and a tyrant.

I think that is the problem here. You think this is like some kind of parliamentary vote of no-confidence. It is not.

So a process that intended to be a criminal process should have laws. If it is a political process then the whole thing needs to be reworked because it is not designed to function that way. It would say something like the Congress can remove the President if they lack confidence in their leadership or something.

No.  Impeachment is not a criminal process nor is it designed to judge or punish criminals.  It is a political process designed to remove from power those who have judicial functions, because judicial functions can't be used against the holders of the judicial power (and the President has a number of powers that can be considered "judicial").  Criminal prosecution can follow successful impeachment, but doesn't have to.  "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" may not be violations of the law at all.