Impeach

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Impeach

Post by notmartha » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:52 pm

BIBLE

The word “impeach” is not found in the KJV or other translations I checked, except:

Weymouth New Testament, Richard Francis Weymouth, 1902
Acts 24:2 - So Paul was sent for, and Tertullus began to impeach him as follows: "Indebted as we are," he said, "to you, most noble Felix, for the perfect peace which we enjoy, and for reforms which your wisdom has introduced to this nation,
Acts 25:5 - "Therefore let those of you," he said, "who can come, go down with me, and impeach the man, if there is anything amiss in him."
Acts 26:6 - And now I stand here impeached because of my hope in the fulfilment of the promise made by God to our forefathers—
Romans 8:33 - Who shall impeach those whom God has chosen? God declares them free from guilt.
DEFINITIONS

Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828
IMPE'ACH, verb transitive [Latin pango, pactus.]

1. To hinder; to impede. This sense is found in our early writers.
These ungracious practices of his sons did impeach his journey to the Holy Land.
A defluxion on my throat impeached my utterance.
[This application of the word is obsolete.]
2. To accuse; to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; but appropriately, to exhibit charges of maladministration against a public officer before a competent tribunal, that is, to send or put on, to load. The word is now restricted to accusations made by authority; as, to impeach a judge. [See Impeachment.]
3. To accuse; to censure; to call in question; as, to impeach one's motives or conduct.
4. To call to account; to charge as answerable.
IMPE'ACH, noun Hinderance.
IMPE'ACHMENT, noun Hinderance; impediment; stop; obstruction.

1. An accusation or charge brought against a public officer for maladministration in his office. In Great Britain, it is the privilege or right of the house of commons to impeach, and the right of the house of lords to try and determine impeachments. In the U. States, it is the right of the house of representatives to impeach, and of the senate to try and determine impeachments. In Great Britain, the house of peers, and in the U. States, the senate of the U.States, and the senates in the several states, are the high courts of impeachment
2. The act of impeaching.
3. Censure; accusation; a calling in question the purity of motives or the rectitude of conduct, etc. This declaration is no impeachment of his motives or of his judgment.
4. The act of calling to account, as for waste.
5. The state of being liable to account, as for waste.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
IMPEACHMENT, const. law, punishments.

Under the constitution and laws of the United States, an impeachment may be described to be a written accusation, by the house of representatives of the United States, to the senate of the United States, against an officer. The presentment, written accusation, is called articles of impeachment.
2. The constitution declares that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment art. 1, s. 2, cl. 5 and that the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Art. 1, s. 3, cl. 6.
3. The persons liable to impeachment are the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States. Art. 2, s. 4. A question arose upon an impeachment before the senate, in 1799, whether a senator was a civil officer of the United States, within the purview of this section of the constitution, and it was decided by the senate, by a vote of fourteen against eleven, that he was not. Senate Journ., January 10th, 1799; Story on Const. §791; Rawle on Const. 213, 214 Serg. Const. Law, 376.
4. The offences for which a guilty officer may be impeached are, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Art. 2, s. 4. The constitution defines the crime of treason. Art. 3, s. 3. Recourse must be had to the common law for a definition of bribery. Not having particularly mentioned what is to be understood by "other high crimes and misdemeanors," resort, it is presumed, must be had to parliamentary practice, and the common law, in order to ascertain what they are. Story, §795.
5. The mode of proceeding, in the institution and trial of impeachments, is as follows: When a person who may be legally impeached has been guilty, or is supposed to have been guilty, of some malversation in office, a resolution is generally brought forward by a member of the house of representatives, either to accuse the party, or for a committee of inquiry. If the committee report adversely to the party accused, they give a statement of the charges, and recommend that he be impeached; when the resolution is adopted by the house, a committee is appointed to impeach the party at the bar of the senate, and to state that the articles of impeachment against him will be exhibited in due time, and made good before the senate, and to demand that the senate take order for the appearance of the party to answer to the impeachment. The house then agree upon the articles of impeachment, and they are presented to the senate by a committee appointed by the house to prosecute the impeachment; the senate then issues process, summoning the party to appear at a given day before them, to answer to the articles. The process is served by the sergeant at arms of the senate, and a return is made of it to the senate, under oath. On the return day of the process, the senate resolves itself into a court of impeachment, and the senators are sworn to do justice, according to the constitution and laws. The person impeached is called to answer, and either appears or does not appear. If he does not appear, his default is recorded, and the senate may proceed ex parte. If he does appear, either by himself or attorney, the parties are required to form an issue, and a time is then assigned for the trial. The proceedings on the trial are conducted substantially as they are upon common judicial trials. If any debates arise among the senators, they are conducted in secret, and the final decision is given by yeas and nays; but no person can be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Const. art. 1, s. 2, cl. 6.
6. When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside. The judgment, in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Proceedings on impeachments under the state constitutions are somewhat similar. Vide Courts of the United States.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition, 1891
IMPEACH.

To accuse; to charge a liability upon; to sue. To proceed against a public officer for crime or misfeasance, before a proper court, by the presentation of a written accusation called “articles of impeachment."

In the law of evidence. To call in question the veracity of a witness, by means of evidence adduced for that purpose.
IMPEACHMENT.

A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called “articles of impeachment;" for example, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer.

In England, a prosecution by the house of commons before the house of lords of a commoner for treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or of a peer for any crime.

In evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1910
IMPEACH.

To accuse; to charge a liability upon ; to sue. To dispute, disparage, deny, or contradict ; as, to impeach a judgment or decree; or as used in the rule that a jury cannot "impeach their verdict." See Wolfgram v. Schoepke,123 Wis. 19, 100 N. W. 1056.

To proceed against a public officer for crime or misfeasance, before a proper court, by the presentation of a written accusation called "articles of impeachment."

In the law of evidence. To call in question the veracity of a witness, by means of evidence adduced for that purpose.
IMPEACHMENT.

A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment;" for example, a written accusation by the house of representatives of the United States to the senate of the United States against an officer.

In England, a prosecution by the house of commons before the house of lords of a commoner for treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or of a peer for any crime.

In evidence. An allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit.

—Articles of impeachment. The formal written allegation of the causes for an impeachment, answering; the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.

—Collateral impeachment. The collateral impeachment of a judgment or decree is an attempt made to destroy or evade its effect as an estoppel, by reopening the merits of the cause or showing reasons why the judgment should not have been given or should not have a conclusive effect, in any collateral proceeding, that is, in any action or proceeding other than that in which the judgment was given, or other than an appeal, certiorari, or other direct proceeding to review it.

—Impeachment of annuity. A term sometimes used in English law to denote anything that operates as a hindrance, impediment or obstruction of the making of the profits out of which the annuity is to arise. Pitt v. Williams. 4 Adol. & El.885.

—Impeachment of waste. Liability for waste committed ; or a demand or suit for compensation for waste committed upon lands or tenements by a tenant thereof who. having only a leasehold or particular estate, had no right to commit waste. See 2 Bl. Comm. 283 ; San derson v. Jones, 6 Fla. 480. 63 Am. Dec. 217.

—Impeachment of witness. Proof that a witness who has testified in a cause is unworthy of credit. White v. Railroad Co.. 142 Ind.648, 42 N. E. 456; Com. v. Welch, 111 Ky.530, 63 S. W. 984; Smith v. State, 109 Ga.479. 35 S. E. 59.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1919
impea'ch, v.t.

Call in question, disparage, (character &c); accuse (person) of, charge(with); find fault with (thing) ; accuse of treason or other high crime before competent tribunal. Hence impea'chABLE
impea'chment, n.

Calling in question; accusation, esp. (facet.) the soft i. (Sheridan, Rivals v. 3); accusation & prosecution for treason &c.
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Third Edition, 1969
impeachment.

The act of discrediting a person or a thing. Calling the integrity or ability of a person into question. The imputation of fault or of defective performance, particularly that of a public officer. Shanks v Julian. 213 Ky 291. 303. 280 SW 1081. 1085. Showing imperfection or error, for example, attacking the certified record on appeal by comparing it with the transcript. 4 Am J2d A & E § 503. Questioning the authenticity of a document or the veracity of a witness.

To impeach. as applied to a person. is to accuse. to blame. to censure him. It includes the imputation of wrongdoing. To impeach his official report or conduct is to show that it was occasioned by some partiality, bias, prejudice, inattention to, or unfaithfulness in. the discharge of that duty, or, that it was based upon such error that the existence of such influences may be justly inferred from the extraordinary character or grossness of that error. Bryant v Glidden, 36 Me 36. 47.
impeachment court.

A court for the trial of an impeached officer. 20 Am J2d Cts § 34. The uipper house of a legislative body. 20 Am J2d Cts §34.

In the impeachment of an officer of the United States, the accusation is made by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate. under section 3 of article I of the United States Constitution. ln some of the states the same procedure is followed. In other states, the legislature has relegated impeachment cases to the courts. Re John J. Marks. 45 Cal 199.
impeachment of pubic officer.

Seeking the removal of a public officer upon charges, formally made, of the commission of a
crime or of official misconduct or neglect. Technically, the adoption of articles of impeachment upon inquiry by the lower house of Congress or the legislature, the filing of such articles with, and their acceptance by, the United States Senate in the case of a federal officer, or the upper house of the legislature or court of impeachment in the case of a state officer. 43 Am J1st Pub O1 § 175. 178.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979
Impeachment.

A criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called "articles of impeachment"; for example, a written accusation by the House of Representatives of the United States to the Senate of the United States against the President, Vice President, or an officer of the United States. Such federal power of impeachment is provided for in Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution. Under Art. I, § 2, cl. 5, the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment", and under § 3, cl. 6, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments".
Articles of impeachment. The formal written allegation of the causes for an impeachment, answering the same purpose as an indictment in an ordinary criminal proceeding.
Collateral impeachment. See Collateral attack.
Impeachment of verdict. Attack on verdict because of alleged improprieties in the jury's deliberations or conduct.
Impeachment of witness. To call in question the veracity of a witness, by means of evidence adduced for such purpose, or the adducing of proof that a witness is unworthy of belief. McWethy v. Lee, 1 Ill.App.3d 80, 272 N.E.2d 663, 666. In general, though there are variations from state to state, a witness may be impeached with respect to prior inconsistent statements, contradiction of facts, bias, or character. A witness, once impeached, may be rehabilitated with evidence supporting credibility. State v. Peterson, Iowa, 219 N.W.2d 665, 671.

Fed.R.Civil P. 32(a)(1) permits the use at trial of a witness's prior deposition to discredit or impeach testimony of the deponent as a witness.

Fed.Evid.R. 607 provides that the "credibility of a witness may be attached by any party, including the party calling him." Rule 608 governs impeachment by evidence of character and conduct of witness, and Rule 609 impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. See also Bill of address; Jenks Act or Rule; Prior inconsistent statements.
MISCELLANEOUS

Handbook Of American Constitutional Law, Henry Campbell Black, M.A., 1910
Constitutional Law Impeachment.pdf
(24.51 KiB) Downloaded 6 times

No Treason. No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority, Lysander Spooner, 1870
The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives, and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.

The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?
Impeachment! by Chuck Baldwin, October 3, 2019

Read article in entirety here: https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/t ... hment.aspx
The U.S. House of Representatives (“The People’s House”) has launched a formal impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump. True to form, Christians, conservatives and most Republicans are dismissing this investigation as “another witch hunt” against Trump.

To be sure, the only time a political party in Washington, D.C., gets constitutionally indignant against a sitting president is when that president is a member of the opposite party. Accordingly, impeachment or censorship is typically NOT motivated by reasons of constitutional conviction but by reasons that are nothing more than pure political partisanship. They (both parties) only care about the Constitution when they can use it as a hammer against the other party.

By the same token, rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans typically don’t give a rat’s tail about the Constitution either—except when THEY can use it as a hammer against the other party. I’ll say it again: The phony left/right, Democrat/Republican paradigm is killing our country.
...
Regardless, this point needs to be driven home: America’s founders believed that impeachment was a very important and necessary tool in the arsenal of liberty and constitutional government. If anything, impeachment is not used nearly often enough.

James Madison saw the impeachment clause in the Constitution as being “indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” He further explained, “The limitation of the period of his [the president’s] service was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation [embezzlement or theft] or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Elbridge Gerry said, “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”

George Mason said, “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?”

Impeachment is the constitutional antidote to the unconstitutional conduct of civil magistrates. The fact that impeachment has been used so seldom is a curse, not a blessing. Since 1789, only 19 federal officials have been brought up on impeachment charges by the House of Representatives, with eight people convicted after a Senate trial. Two Presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton—were impeached but were not found guilty by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Impeachment is a strong deterrent to mischief and is an intricate part of our constitutional system of checks and balances against the attempted accruement of power by the executive or judicial branches of government. Via the Constitution, our founders entrusted the greatest authority over government corruption and the greatest responsibility to protect the liberties of the American people to the Congress—especially to the House of Representatives—hence the duty of the American people to elect honest and honorable men and women to the U.S. House—which is rightly called “The People’s House.”

Even if a president is not removed from office, the fact that he was impeached will deter future actions of wrongdoing and will also mar his future reputation. History will forever hold an impeached president’s term in office in disrepute. Potential impeachment was intended to be a strong deterrent against presidential abuse of power.

Obviously, for impeachment to be the proper tool for good that it was designed to be, the House of Representatives must be comprised of men and women of constitutional principle who value liberty and constitutional government above partisan politics. This we have not had in ages. Furthermore, the American people who elect their U.S. House members must be men and women who value liberty and constitutional government above partisan politics. Neither have we had this in ages.

Accordingly, impeachment is not often used, as principled constitutionalism in the U.S. House and in the voting public is as rare as hen’s teeth. And on those isolated occasions when it is used, it is used mostly as a Sword of Damocles for partisan politics rather than a sword of justice for the principles of liberty.
Post Reply