Reply #104: Wow, you really shouldn't have brought up the question about [View All]

[BuyingThyme]

taking a course in Constitutional law. Particularly not after you proved you don't understand the concept of impeachment as outlined in the Constitution.

Let's take you to school:

The "impeachment clause" was intended as a supplementary security (beyond indictment) to assure the good behavior of public officers. The phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to attempts to subvert the Constitution.

The framers included this language because they believed the criminal courts did not have the ability to deal with such offenses, and the Supreme Court, with one small exception, has been removed from the process for good reason (contrary to that stuff you made up about them having to get involved).

Your overarching position -- the one which says there is no obligation to impeach -- is no different than a position that there is no obligation to indict. You've created a lesser (or non-) standard for the very people who have sworn to protect the Constitution, and a higher standard for the likes of John Ashcroft.

I don't understand it.