Biden impeachment inquiry

@no1marauder said
If you don't like the Constitution, change it.

The provision has been in the Constitution since 1787; are you saying it should be ignored?

I don't need to change it. It says nothing about having to be in office.
You simply made that up. That is why Trump and Belknap were able to be impeached when they were out of office and Biden can be impeached the same way. When he committed crimes is irrelevant. Whether or not he is in office when impeached is irrelevant.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Your previous claim that the impeachment inquiry into Biden is unconstitutional was complete BS and you know it.

@metal-brain said
I don't need to change it. It says nothing about having to be in office.
You simply made that up. That is why Trump and Belknap were able to be impeached when they were out of office and Biden can be impeached the same way. When he committed crimes is irrelevant. Whether or not he is in office when impeached is irrelevant.

"The President, Vice President and all civi ...[text shortened]... s claim that the impeachment inquiry into Biden is unconstitutional was complete BS and you know it.

Seriously, GFY. You're incredibly ignorant about these and virtually every other matter.

Belknap was impeached for misconduct during his term in office as Secretary of War, not for things he did years before he assumed that office.

I explained what "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" meant and no one has showed any evidence to the contrary.

If you're saying Biden can be impeached as Vice-President NOW, that's pretty absurd.

@metal-brain said
I don't need to change it. It says nothing about having to be in office.
You simply made that up. That is why Trump and Belknap were able to be impeached when they were out of office and Biden can be impeached the same way. When he committed crimes is irrelevant. Whether or not he is in office when impeached is irrelevant.

"The President, Vice President and all civi ...[text shortened]... s claim that the impeachment inquiry into Biden is unconstitutional was complete BS and you know it.

I asked:

"Could he be impeached and removed for the "High Crime and Misdemeanor" of putting a tack on Johnny's chair in Fourth Grade?"

So your answer is "yes"?

@no1marauder said
The Constitution says "Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High crimes and Misdemeanors" had a specific meaning at the time of the Constitutional Convention; it referred to misconduct in office (which didn't necessarily mean violations of the Criminal law). Removal from office is a remedy for misconduct in that office, not a blank check to judge anything the office holder did in his life.

Prove it. The constitution does not specify they had to have committed the crime while in office. You made that up.

@no1marauder said
I asked:

"Could he be impeached and removed for the "High Crime and Misdemeanor" of putting a tack on Johnny's chair in Fourth Grade?"

So your answer is "yes"?

I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations would prevent that.
This is just one of many examples that show you are not a lawyer as you falsely claimed. Stop impersonating a lawyer!

@metal-brain said
I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations would prevent that.
This is just one of many examples that show you are not a lawyer as you falsely claimed. Stop impersonating a lawyer!

There's no statute of limitations in impeachment, you idiot.

@metal-brain said
Prove it. The constitution does not specify they had to have committed the crime while in office. You made that up.

GFY.

I explained the reasoning behind impeachment; it is to remove someone for misconduct in their office. I surely can't "prove" anything to someone as stubbornly, obnoxiously ignorant as you but that is what the debates at the Constitutional Convention and elsewhere show. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/02/the-framers-views-on-impeachment/

There is simply no discussion nor any consideration of the idea that one could be impeached for conduct long before taking office.

@no1marauder said
There's no statute of limitations in impeachment, you idiot.

There is for childhood pranks you idiot!

@no1marauder said
GFY.

I explained the reasoning behind impeachment; it is to remove someone for misconduct in their office. I surely can't "prove" anything to someone as stubbornly, obnoxiously ignorant as you but that is what the debates at the Constitutional Convention and elsewhere show. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/02/the-framers-views-on-impeachment/

There is simply ...[text shortened]... nor any consideration of the idea that one could be impeached for conduct long before taking office.

"I explained the reasoning behind impeachment; it is to remove someone for misconduct in their office"

I could care less what your opinion of the constitution is. Show me where is says it has to be misconduct "in their office" in the actual constitution. Prove it or admit you made it up.

@metal-brain said
There is for childhood pranks you idiot!

Not according to this moron:

Metal Brain: When he committed crimes is irrelevant.

@no1marauder said
Not according to this moron:

Metal Brain: When he committed crimes is irrelevant.

Maybe they can impeach for a stupid reason like that. Can you prove they cannot?

@metal-brain said
"I explained the reasoning behind impeachment; it is to remove someone for misconduct in their office"

I could care less what your opinion of the constitution is. Show me where is says it has to be misconduct "in their office" in the actual constitution. Prove it or admit you made it up.

That's what "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. And I hardly invented its meaning:

"Over the years, the English Parliament had developed and deployed the power of impeachment in its historic struggles to check the powers of the King and his ministers. The House of Commons had impeached and brought before the House of Lords for trial officers of the crown, including ministers and judges, that they believed had violated the constitution or laws; subverted the rights of Parliament or the system of government; abused or misused power; failed to perform the duties of office faithfully and competently; engaged in self-dealing behavior or misuse of funds; or were guilty of oppression, corruption, or other misbehavior or “mal-administration.”

https://lawliberty.org/the-original-meaning-of-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-part-1/

The concept of impeachment was used by the British Parliament as early as 1376, as a legislative safeguard against overreach by the aristocracy, and the terms in question were part of the process early on.

“In England a lot of the impeachment cases had relied on this language of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ from the 1640s onward,” Bernadette Meyler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, explains.

But the phrase didn’t have a set definition in British practice; it was used to describe whatever thing the person was being impeached for, according to Bowman. There were several things for which people were impeached during this era: ordinary crimes, treason, corruption, abuse of power, ordinary incompetence and misbehavior in relation to foreign policy."

https://news.yahoo.com/high-crimes-misdemeanors-history-234311005.html

Your idiotic claim that I just "made it up" is based on your appalling ignorance of the actual history.

@metal-brain said
Maybe they can impeach for a stupid reason like that. Can you prove they cannot?

I already stated I cannot prove anything to someone as obnoxiously ignorant as you. All I can do is show evidence pointing to the most likely explanation of what the Constitutional provision means.

"Impeachment has been used to remove government officers who abuse the power of the office; conduct themselves in a manner incompatible with the purpose and function of their office; or misuse the office for improper or personal gain.6"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-overview

@no1marauder said
That's what "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. And I hardly invented its meaning:

"Over the years, the English Parliament had developed and deployed the power of impeachment in its historic struggles to check the powers of the King and his ministers. The House of Commons had impeached and brought before the House of Lords for trial officers of the crown, inclu ...[text shortened]... r idiotic claim that I just "made it up" is based on your appalling ignorance of the actual history.

A childhood prank is considered a misdemeanor? Was the child convicted of a misdemeanor? You are digressing into stupid nonsense now. Give it up.

@no1marauder said
I already stated I cannot prove anything to someone as obnoxiously ignorant as you. All I can do is show evidence pointing to the most likely explanation of what the Constitutional provision means.

"Impeachment has been used to remove government officers who abuse the power of the office; conduct themselves in a manner incompatible with the purpose and function of thei ...[text shortened]...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-overview

Has been used is not the same as has to be used. You cannot prove anything because you have nothing. Even your quotes don't prove what you claim. It isn't just me. You cannot prove it to anyone. That is why you are giving up. You have nothing but opinions.