Welcome to the 54Net FORUM

The FORUM is provided for Classmates and their families to present information of interest to the Class.

Dershowitz on Grounds for Impeachment

Hearing Alan Dershowitz , on various news programs this morning, declaring that "abuse of power" is not sufficient grounds for impeachment, and that such grounds require the commission of a legally criminal act, caused me to try to check this out on the internet.
From what I found, it looks like Dershowitz's position is unlikely to be upheld.
For example, here is what I found in Wikipedia:
"..The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[7] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[7] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][8]
The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][9] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[1][10] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"óconduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[1][8][10].."

Also, checking out the list of the various impeachments over the years (including personnel other than presidents), I found numerous cases of impeachments not involving criminal acts, including those where the accused was either found guilty or who resigned prior to the trial.

One of the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was abuse of power on numerous occasions.
Although the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of Nixon's impeachment, it would have taken ten Republicans senators voting with the Democrats to convict Nixon of the impeachment charges.
When the Senate Republican leadership informed Nixon that there were enough Republican Senatorial votes to support his conviction, Nixon resigned.

It'll be interesting to see how Dershowitz's argument plays out in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Since the Republican-controlled Senate will have no diifficulty in finding Trump not guilty of the Democrat-controlled House impeachment charges, without relying upon the Dershowitz argument, I have a feeling that they won't rely upon that argument--this because such reliance might come back to bite them in the future.


Post a reply:
bold italic underline left align right align center align url email image move quote horizontal rule

Link Name:
Link URL:
Image URL:
Password To Edit Post:

Create Your Own Free Message Board or Free Forum!
Hosted By Boards2Go Copyright © 2020

<-- -->