riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/21/83)
My understanding is that even if Reagan's actions concerning Grenada were
legal from the point of view of the War Powers Act, they were clearly
illegal under international law (specifically the charters of both the
U.N. and the O.A.S.). Question: is a clear violation of international law
on the part of an elected official grounds for impeachment in the U.S.?
(Please note that I don't expect such an impeachment to take place. I'm
just wondering about the legality of the matter.)
----
Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCPsasw@bnl.UUCP (Steven Akiba Swernofsky) (11/24/83)
Gerald Ford, when he was in the Congress, claimed that "anything the
House and Senate could agree on" would be legitimate grounds for
impeachment. Of course, when he became President, he had a somewhat
different view. . . .
The constitution requires that the President be charged with "High
Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is not completely clear if this requires
an indictable offense, or extreme abuse of office, or both or neither.
It is generally agreed that merely unpopular acts are not impeachable,
though.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee reported out three articles of
impeachment against Richard Nixon. They were
1. obstruction of justice in the watergate investigation;
2. harrassment of private citizens with the IRS and FBI; and
3. failure to obey the House's investigatory subpoenas.
These should serve as examples if nothing else.
-- Stevesmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/28/83)
It is exceedingly doubtful that the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in an impeachment case. Impeachments are tried by the Senate, not an ordinary federal court. And the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an old phrase from English common law; it's precise meaning, especially today, is not at all clear. If I recall correctly what I read during the Watergate hearings, it did at some point include political crimes; today, though, the supporters of the accused individual (and there are always some; Nixon still has some) have been holding the accusers to a much higher standard of accusation and proof.