High Crimes and the Senate question.

  • Join War Room Forum!

    Welcome Deplorable! Please take a moment to Sign Up for a free account so you can join in on the LIVE CHAT and forum DISCUSSIONS.

    Sign Up    Live Chat Login


OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
While researching various laws and powers of the Senate, an article stated that the Senate has the ability to charge, try/trial and remove politicians, particularly the President and Vice President, if guilty of “High Crimes.” Is this correct? If it is, then what acts would, or could, be considered a “High Crime Offense” and what evidence is required for the charge? Is this the same or different process as impeachment?
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
That's an excellent question. Yes, it is referencing one of the impeachment clauses. Specifically Article 2 Section 4. (The Senate does not charge though, that's the House's responsibility)

"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."

Treason is defined in the Constitution, and Bribery is well defined in Common Law. But the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not defined anywhere, and it's treated more as a "term of art". . It is generally considered to mean misuses of public office, even if they are not necessarily criminal acts.

Hamilton described it like this in Federalist 65 (arguing in favor of making the Senate the trial jurisdiction for impeachments):

"...The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OkieAnnie918

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
That's an excellent question. Yes, it is referencing one of the impeachment clauses. Specifically Article 2 Section 4. (The Senate does not charge though, that's the House's responsibility)

"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."

Treason is defined in the Constitution, and Bribery is well defined in Common Law. But the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not defined anywhere, and it's treated more as a "term of art". . It is generally considered to mean misuses of public office, even if they are not necessarily criminal acts.

Hamilton described it like this in Federalist 65 (arguing in favor of making the Senate the trial jurisdiction for impeachments):

"...The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Thank you for your answer!! One would think it would not be too difficult to apply multiple actions of Biden to have him removed “IF” there were more righteous senators. Hopefully, there will be a purge in 2022 of anti-American members of Congress and other elected offices.
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
Everything in the Constitution is about checks and balances, avoiding concentrations of power. The Framers understood they needed a way to remove Gov't officials for abuses of power, but they did not want a Parliamentary System where the Chief Magistrate served at the whim of the Legislative Branch.

In Federalist 65 and 66, Hamilton argues why the Senate is the appropriate body to try impeachments. Inherent in his arguments is the separation of powers that is so fundamental to our Republic.

One of the chief arguments is that Senators were selected by State Legislatures. Representatives were elected by the people, and the House was the appropriate body to bring the charges (speaking for the people). Since the Senate was removed from the popular vote, they were shielded from the political fallout of an unpopular verdict. And since they were responsible for confirming appointments, they should also play a role in removals.

But they set a high bar with 2/3 to convict, so that there had to be strong sentiment in both public opinion and State Legislatures to remove a high official.

The 17th amendment removed this important check in the system that the Framers were so careful to create. It's one of the many ways the Constitution has been eroded in the progressive era.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OkieAnnie918

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
Everything in the Constitution is about checks and balances, avoiding concentrations of power. The Framers understood they needed a way to remove Gov't officials for abuses of power, but they did not want a Parliamentary System where the Chief Magistrate served at the whim of the Legislative Branch.

In Federalist 65 and 66, Hamilton argues why the Senate is the appropriate body to try impeachments. Inherent in his arguments is the separation of powers that is so fundamental to our Republic.

One of the chief arguments is that Senators were selected by State Legislatures. Representatives were elected by the people, and the House was the appropriate body to bring the charges (speaking for the people). Since the Senate was removed from the popular vote, they were shielded from the political fallout of an unpopular verdict. And since they were responsible for confirming appointments, they should also play a role in removals.

But they set a high bar with 2/3 to convict, so that there had to be strong sentiment in both public opinion and State Legislatures to remove a high official.

The 17th amendment removed this important check in the system that the Framers were so careful to create. It's one of the many way the Constitution has been eroded in the progressive era.
Thank you for the time and consideration you invested in answering my question. It is very much appreciated and I hope others take time to read your detailed and educational post! You have a fan! 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: highsea

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
Well thank you for the kind words Annie, that is very gracious. I am a big fan of the Constitution, I think it's the most brilliant instruction manual for a government ever written.

It's been under attack for a long time, poor thing.

Even in these trying times, just remember there is a Constitutional remedy for a runaway government in Article V. It's a high bar- like removing a President- but if necessary, 38 States can lay down the law to any part of D.C., and they don't get a say.

Not even the US Congress can destroy this great country without the consent of the States, so stand proud with your Constitution, girl. This too will pass.
 

Susan M

Well-known Member
Feb 1, 2021
650
1,007
93
Well thank you for the kind words Annie, that is very gracious. I am a big fan of the Constitution, I think it's the most brilliant instruction manual for a government ever written.

It's been under attack for a long time, poor thing.

Even in these trying times, just remember there is a Constitutional remedy for a runaway government in Article V. It's a high bar- like removing a President- but if necessary, 38 States can lay down the law to any part of D.C., and they don't get a say.

Not even the US Congress can destroy this great country without the consent of the States, so stand proud with your Constitution, girl. This too will pass.
Hello Highsea,
I'm impressed with your knowledge of the Constitution too. I'm interested in the Convention of States. I have joined and signed petition for my state. I realize we still have a ways to go, but more States are pushing this through their legislatures lately. All of the runaway EO's and legislation being promoted to take away states rights are making states want to pass this. Can you tell me if the filibuster is killed by the Demonrats, if the COS Art V could take the place of it, or be even stronger than filibuster, if we get 38 states to sign on?
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
Shucks Susan, forget the filibuster. That's nothing.

An Article V convention could wipe Washington D.C. off the map. Literally. Return the land to Maryland and set up a new seat of Government outside Topeka if they wanted to (and Kansas didn't object).

The States created D.C., the States can uncreate it. The combined power of 3/4 of the States, over the Federal Government, is unlimited in an Article V convention.

38 States could write a 3/4 vote filibuster into the Constitution, and the Senate would be forever bound.

The Congress does not get a say. Upon receipt of the application of 2/3 of the States, Congress SHALL call the convention. They don't have an option- it's like when the House sends Articles of Impeachment to the Senate- the Senate has to stop business and take up the articles without delay.

If the Congress refused to call the Convention, the States wiould just call it anyway. But the Congress can't refuse, Article V does not give them that option.

It's the Constitutional "nuclear option" and it terrifies D.C.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Susan M

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
I'll just add a little commentary ladies, since you are interested, Feel free to scroll past if I get to verbose.

I am a big advocate for the Article V path, and I am vehemently opposed to any so-called secession movements. That was tried once, and it did more harm than just a civil war.

That war changed the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and marks the beginning of the end of the Framer's Constitution.

It's nicely illustrated in this map of Federal land.
Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

All the States with a lot of red are the ones admitted after the civil war. (Hawaii is the exception here because it was an independent republic before the US annexed it ,and had no unallocated land before becoming a State)

Anyhow, back to the Constitution.

The Framers allocated land for the Federal Government in the Constitution. "Not to exceed 10 miles square" and such land as needed for "Ports and Forts:" and other Government buildings. (think Federal Courthouses, Post Offices, etc)

The Framers never envisioned a Federal Government that owned huge parcels of land. This goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance (which at the time meant the Ohio area).

The Northwest Ordinance defined how new States would be created. It codified that any unallocated land in the territory would become State land, no later than 10 years after admission into the Union. The Constitutional Congress had an interest in the westward expansion, and was making land grants and homesteads, and so on. They wanted westward migration, and they wanted to be able to grant land to accomplish that goal.

We would add new States rather than expanding existing ones. That's good. But there was a time limit on who controlled the land, because they recognized that the Central Gov't should not own big chunks of a State.

This law was affirmed by the new Congress and carried on after the Constitution was ratified, up until the civil war.

A territory becomes a State through an enabling act passed by Congress. After the civil war, the Congress started writing a surrender clause into the enabling acts. The clause requires that the State forfeit all claim to any unallocated land at the time they were admitted to the union. This must be (and is) written into every State Constitution before it will be admitted.

Instead of a property manager, the Federal Gov't became the property owner. The Constitution guarantees that new States join the union "on an equal footing" with all other States, but that clearly isn't so. The land and resources that would otherwise be available to the State are held in perpetuity by the Federal Government.

With all this wealth and power, the Federal Government has grown to the gigantic beast it is today- one that thinks it has the right to tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, or how much water you can flush in your toilet.

Wouldn't it have been better if they'd had an Article V Convention back in 1861 to try to work out their issues?

edited: I corrected: Northwest Ordinance, I originally mis-stated it as Northwest Territories Act.
 
Last edited:

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
Well thank you for the kind words Annie, that is very gracious. I am a big fan of the Constitution, I think it's the most brilliant instruction manual for a government ever written.

It's been under attack for a long time, poor thing.

Even in these trying times, just remember there is a Constitutional remedy for a runaway government in Article V. It's a high bar- like removing a President- but if necessary, 38 States can lay down the law to any part of D.C., and they don't get a say.

Not even the US Congress can destroy this great country without the consent of the States, so stand proud with your Constitution, girl. This too will pass.
What do think about charging “the masters” directing and controlling Biden with Elder Abuse? They are clearly using his mental decline to destroy our country and hand it over to the highest bidder? Between handing over the 1.9T “Relief Package,” opening our southern border to any breathing organism (who knows the cost) and NOW he wants 2T for infrastructure.....if we cannot stop him then we need to focus on those that are controlling him. Would like to hear your thoughts.
 

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
Everything in the Constitution is about checks and balances, avoiding concentrations of power. The Framers understood they needed a way to remove Gov't officials for abuses of power, but they did not want a Parliamentary System where the Chief Magistrate served at the whim of the Legislative Branch.

In Federalist 65 and 66, Hamilton argues why the Senate is the appropriate body to try impeachments. Inherent in his arguments is the separation of powers that is so fundamental to our Republic.

One of the chief arguments is that Senators were selected by State Legislatures. Representatives were elected by the people, and the House was the appropriate body to bring the charges (speaking for the people). Since the Senate was removed from the popular vote, they were shielded from the political fallout of an unpopular verdict. And since they were responsible for confirming appointments, they should also play a role in removals.

But they set a high bar with 2/3 to convict, so that there had to be strong sentiment in both public opinion and State Legislatures to remove a high official.

The 17th amendment removed this important check in the system that the Framers were so careful to create. It's one of the many ways the Constitution has been eroded in the progressive era.else to
That's an excellent question. Yes, it is referencing one of the impeachment clauses. Specifically Article 2 Section 4. (The Senate does not charge though, that's the House's responsibility)

"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."

Treason is defined in the Constitution, and Bribery is well defined in Common Law. But the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not defined anywhere, and it's treated more as a "term of art". . It is generally considered to mean misuses of public office, even if they are not necessarily criminal acts.

Hamilton described it like this in Federalist 65 (arguing in favor of making the Senate the trial jurisdiction for impeachments):

"...The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Here is another question for you😉 It is possible to get a 24hr Psyc hold, voluntarily or non-voluntary, placed on anyone to evaluate if they are a threat to themselves or others. Considering he is “The President” Biden has the ability to cause irreparable damage to everyone and he is currently killing our country as we know it. Who and how can request/demand an evaluation of his psychi and metal ability?
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
What do think about charging “the masters” directing and controlling Biden with Elder Abuse? They are clearly using his mental decline to destroy our country and hand it over to the highest bidder? Between handing over the 1.9T “Relief Package,” opening our southern border to any breathing organism (who knows the cost) and NOW he wants 2T for infrastructure.....if we cannot stop him then we need to focus on those that are controlling him. Would like to hear your thoughts.
I guess I'd say there is sufficient evidence in the public record to challenge his mental competence under Article 25, but bringing criminal charges of abuse against anyone around him would be a tall order.

Biden is clearly a willing participant- he is not being forced or coerced as far as we can tell, so the alleged abuse is pretty subjective- Biden would not say he was being abused, Jill would not say that.

If the victim does not consider themselves to be a victim, who has standing to bring the accusation? Not you or I- only the State.

The charge would have to be brought by the District Attorney in whatever is the local jurisdiction- the State of Maryland or the District of Columbia. It's not a Federal offense. And "Elder Abuse" is not a statutory crime, it's more of a catch phrase that does not necessarily imply criminality. The laws are similar to the laws that protect other dependents from abuse by caregivers. The State would have to prove a specific harm, with intent, and show the relevant statute that is being broken.

It requires specific actions that you can point to and say "this is illegal". If someone's care is so neglected to cause them harm, or they are physically abused, it could rise to a criminal offense. I'm not seeing anything like that- at least nothing that would adhere to the rules of evidence that a criminal act has been committed.

I just don't see a practical path forward with that approach. Even though we all can plainly see that Biden is not competent, he is not under the care or custody of anyone in the legal sense. So the laws against abuse are probably not even applicable, since he is not legally a dependent.

We should also be careful what we wish for- I'm not at all confident that a President Harris would be a preferable alternative to Jobama...
 
  • Like
Reactions: OkieAnnie918

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
Here is another question for you😉 It is possible to get a 24hr Psyc hold, voluntarily or non-voluntary, placed on anyone to evaluate if they are a threat to themselves or others. Considering he is “The President” Biden has the ability to cause irreparable damage to everyone and he is currently killing our country as we know it. Who and how can request/demand an evaluation of his psychi and metal ability?
I think it's substantially the same problem as the other. I'm not knowledgeable enough in that area to make a very educated guess. But It usually involves someone going to a court and petitioning for a temporary restraining order and a court ordered psychological evaluation.

That would be awful hard to get against a sitting President, I think.

Ultimately it is the Congress that decides if a sitting President is not fit for duty. The Vice President and the Cabinet, working in unison, can make the declaration- but the President can can protest it, and it would take a 2/3 vote of Congress to remove him and make the VP the new POTUS.
 

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
I guess I'd say there is sufficient evidence in the public record to challenge his mental competence under Article 25, but bringing criminal charges of abuse against anyone around him would be a tall order.

Biden is clearly a willing participant- he is not being forced or coerced as far as we can tell, so the alleged abuse is pretty subjective- Biden would not say he was being abused, Jill would not say that.

If the victim does not consider themselves to be a victim, who has standing to bring the accusation? Not you or I- only the State.

The charge would have to be brought by the District Attorney in whatever is the local jurisdiction- the State of Maryland or the District of Columbia. It's not a Federal offense. And "Elder Abuse" is not a statutory crime, it's more of a catch phrase that does not necessarily imply criminality. The laws are similar to the laws that protect other dependents from abuse by caregivers. The State would have to prove a specific harm, with intent, and show the relevant statute that is being broken.

It requires specific actions that you can point to and say "this is illegal". If someone's care is so neglected to cause them harm, or they are physically abused, it could rise to a criminal offense. I'm not seeing anything like that- at least nothing that would adhere to the rules of evidence that a criminal act has been committed.

I just don't see a practical path forward with that approach. Even though we all can plainly see that Biden is not competent, he is not under the care or custody of anyone in the legal sense. So the laws against abuse are probably not even applicable, since he is not legally a dependent.

We should also be careful what we wish for- I'm not at all confident that a President Harris would be a preferable alternative to Jobama...
I 100% agree that a POTUS Harris is as appealing as a President Hitler, Hitler was likely more intelligent. Your answer and “legal reasoning/support” rings true and factual and suggests you have a strong understanding and grasp on the legal system. My background is in science & medicine. Admittedly, my specialization was ob/gyn & infertility. “If” there was a mandatory metal evaluation and diagnosis of mental decline, then what he said/claimed would have little, if any, merit. People diagnosed with dementia if they have made changes in wills, finances and others major decisions, frequently have loved ones plea the courts to appoint a PA and “null and void” changes in wills, finances etc made after symptoms were recognized. My point, if he can be declared mentally incompetent, then there might be a potential for getting many of his EO’s and and signed legislation thrown out. In addition, if dementia is proven it opens the door to investigate the puppet masters. As far as his family, they know the timeline of his health. They could be offered immunity to give information needed go after “the puppet masters.” It might be a “long shot” but that is better than doing nothing. A potential benefit, highlight his mental deficits for “passive” voters and reduce his value to the political mafia....
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,430
1,364
113
If he were to be declared incompetent, definitely his EO's could be challenged in court. That is cut-and-dry both in precedent and statute. All of the criminal stuff I am pretty skeptical about.

I'm a lot more confident talking about the Constitution than statutory law, which is not uniform at all.

The Constitution is civics- the rules we all (in theory) agree on. It's a lot easier to wrap your head around the Constitution than the mish-mash of local statues! Add in administrative courts like Family courts, it gets really complicated really fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OkieAnnie918

OkieAnnie918

Well-known Member
Feb 11, 2021
799
1,174
93
If he were to be declared incompetent, definitely his EO's could be challenged in court. That is cut-and-dry both in precedent and statute. All of the criminal stuff I am pretty skeptical about.

I'm a lot more confident talking about the Constitution than statutory law, which is not uniform at all.

The Constitution is civics- the rules we all (in theory) agree on. It's a lot easier to wrap your head around the Constitution than the mish-mash of local statues! Add in administrative courts like Family courts, it gets really complicated really fast.
I could live with and do cartwheels for just getting the EOs challenged. I would even risk breaking my hip to do so lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: highsea


War Room Live Chat

Support War Room With a Small Donation
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and patriots/causes that appear on the show.

Hey Deplorable! Join us...

Never miss out. Join in on all that our community as to offer!

Sign Me Up!

War Room Podcast

War Room Live Chat