Monday, December 09, 2019
Applying Rules of Statutory Construction to the Constitution of the United States
I have been having some success lately in front of Colorado's Court of Appeals regarding poor use of the rules for construing a statute. I won't bore you with the list of these rules, because if the language of the statute is clear on its face, you don't go further. The statute says what it says.
So, let's apply that first, simple rule to the Constitution, Article II, Section 4; that is, let's read the section, which is short and states:
"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."
(Emphasis
added)
OK, so
Treason is a Crime, Bribery is a Crime, Crimes are Crimes and Misdemeanors are
a subset of Crimes. So they are all crimes. The President, to be removed from
office, must be impeached and convicted of a crime. It clearly could involve a
broad category of crimes, but it has to be a crime. And the only modifier
applicable is the word "other" to define the high Crimes and
Misdemeanors that follow Treason and Bribery.
Noscitur a
sociis is another tool for construing a statute and here both Treason and
Bribery are big, important crimes; so the use of the word "other"
clearly means the other crimes available for removing a President are of
similar importance to Treason and Bribery. Big crimes. That's what it takes. We
don't, indeed can't, remove a President for selling liquor to a minor or for
careless driving.
I have
gone back to telling people that I went to college in the Bay Area of
California, rather than mention the name of where I went, because I am ashamed
of my University, both the anti-free speech efforts and the horrendously bad
professors it continues to employ.
Anyone who
tells you that you don't need a crime to impeach the President is a moron. And
the law professor who said the Constitution predated criminal statutes so that
the authors could not have meant criminal statues in II/4, is a particular
morons. We used the English Common Law before we started writing federal
statutes, but that doesn't mean the common law didn't recognize crimes.
So, easy
prediction here; the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump will not
mention a crime.
Anyone
want to bet against me?
The Impeachment hearings are so boring, even the chairman fell asleep.
UPDATE: Unless there are parts of the United States Code which make the two proposed articles of impeachment actual crimes (and I doubt it, but I will look), it seems I was correct in my prediction above.
Labels: Impeachment Requires Crime
