Was the Clinton Impeachment unconstitutional?

[AJH032]

Someone told me the whole impeachment process against President Clinton was unconstitutional. If so, can someone explain what was unconstitutional about it so I'll have a response to Republicans who claim his impeachment was legal and necessary?

Thanks

[blm]

1. Presidents are supposed to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The use of the word "high" is Old English for "of office" meaning crimes committed that are unique to the power of that office.

There was NOTHING Clinton did that was a crime against the Constitution, unlike Iran-Contra which was orchestrated by Bush1. Imagine if Congress passed legislation forbidding Clinton to send money or arms to a country hostile to our nation, and he secretly did it anyway, all the while funneling more money and arms to ANOTHER illegal operation that also included drugrunning. Aye Carumba.....even I would have led the impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

But, it was Bush1 and his thugs who committed those crimes against the Constitution and that is why Bush2 had all the important papers secured from the Reagan administration on through Clinton's term. He does NOT want the country to know the extent of his daddy's piss on the most basic laws of the Constitution.

[shesemsmom]

2. I would believe the way it came about yes

I don't know of anything in the Constitution about Presidents being liable to be impeached over betraying their wifes. They got him actually for lying about an infidelity and doing it under oath. Cripes...how dumb. Starr just HAD to GET something on CLINTON>>>>Twas a witch hunt. I still don't care if he diddled with whom ever...if Hillery doesn't mind why should we.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. It's a fact...

...perhaps a sad fact, that the impeachment process is a purely political remedy for a political offense, or 'offense'.

There's no one to police the constitutionality of the act. The Judiciary and the Legislative branch are co-equal, and the Courts not only won't, but can't, and shouldn't, rule on the constitutionality of an impeachment.

The ultimate constitutionality, or lack of it, of an impeachment is decided first by the Senate, which tries the impeachment voted out by the House, and will not convict if they find the impeachment constitutionally infirm, and later by the electorate, when the relevant legislators run for re-election.

Until then, an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House says it is.

[peacetalksforall]

4. The constitution connects with high crimes and misdemeanors

AGAINST THE COUNTRY. He lied in a sexcover-up.

They tried to manuever it to apply.

They will try to tell you that his attention was diverted. At the same time they said he was excellent in compartmentalizing - could ignore the character assassination they were trying to execute on him at the same time he fulfilled the duties of the office.

They also used and mixed government agencies with private companies to carry out the character assassinations and the impeachment. FBI agents helped private 'concerns' dig up dirt. FBI held Monica without allowing her to contact her lawyer until after 5 when it was too late for her lawyer to rescind an important letter that was place in the mail. Starr used people in his law firm and media for the set-up of the lie.

But, none of them were fired, fined, or finished.

[anti-fundie]

9. Dishonest

Is it too much to freakin ask out presidents not to lie to us? I'm sick and tired of all of them doing that, no matter what party!!!

[recovering democrat]

5. Close, but ridiculous.

The perception of a citizen who was completely impartial and objective at the time the impeachment started.

My hubby who is very non-political had just retired when this mess started and was interested. He did not have an opinion about it at all but became fascinated. He watched every hearing at every level and the entire trial. If he was going to miss anything, he taped it and played it later. He sat there with his copy of the U. S. Constitution in hand. He was amazed when it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote; he was more amazed when the House voted the articles of impeachment. He wrote cites from the Federalist Papers used by various speakers and made me get him copies of the original writings. He sat there and watched the Senate Trial. He was not amazed when Clinton was not convicted; he expected it. The most insightful thing he said to me was that all through the proceedings, every time he heard a Republican speak, it didn't make sense; every time a Democrat spoke, it did make sense.

Scholars and lawyers can debate anything. If you read the Constitution and the applicable Federalist Papers, most sensible people would agree that the Clinton "crimes" did not meet the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" intended by the founders of this nation. According to my husband who watched the whole thing, the Republicans didn't make sense. But they had the votes and used them.

[NV Whino]

6. Quite simply

Diddling (or being diddled by) an intern is not an impeachable offense. Stupid, yes. Impeachable, no.

[DrGonzoLives]

7. By definition, no

The framers were intentionally vague about "misdemeanors," including some who thought that strictly political offenses should be impeachable.

Was it a useless, partisan waste of time? Absolutely. Unconstitutional? No.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. That's a very narrow legal question that you ask . . . and

The direct answer is "no." "No, Clinton's impeachment was not unconstitutional." That's the short answer. The long answer is in the "why" it's not unconstitutional. Shall I start?

First, an impeachment proceeding of a sitting president starts and stops in congress, period. By that I mean (and the constitution means) that nobody else can tell congress what to do or how to do it. No other branch of government has the constitutional power/authority to tell congress what and how to *do* impeachments. No court-of-law (Judicial Branch) can take an impeachment case and decide that congress (Legislative Branch) was wrong or right. Well? What does THAT tell you?

It tell us that the constitution states that only congress can impeach . . . and upon "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Second, who interprets/defines "high crimes and misdemeanors?" Only congress does. Again, no court-of-law (including the U.S. Supreme Court) can order congress to do or not do whatever about "high crimes and misdemeanors." Again, impeachment proceedings begin and end in congress (Legislative Branch), never in a court-of-law (Judicial Branch).

Are you still w/ me here?

Third, this is why the rightwingnuts in congress impeached Clinton. Because they knew they could. Because they knew they could do so and do so about anything or nothing then call it as "high crimes or misdemeanors!" And they almost got away w/ it too. Clinton was almost "convicted" by the Senate for the House's findings of "impeachment."

Finally, backlash is a deterrent to impeachment. And, one of the many backlashes that the rightwingnuts may face down the road is that they set a very low bar to impeachment in the U.S. House.

It's a precedent setting low bar to impeachment and it may come back to bite them (the rightwingnuts) in the ass. I doubt it but it remains a possibility. That low bar of impeachment is set on subjective "morality" issues in a president's personal life -- after all Clinton's so-called impeachment had nothing to do w/ his work as president, his duty as president. Instead, it dealt solely on his personal life. How stupid can the rightwingnuts get?

As a matter of law, the U.S. Supreme Court should never have ruled that Clinton v. Jones (a law suit about Clinton's personal life), would not interfere w/ his duties as president. It was a 9-0 decision too. But that's another issue, other than you asked.




.