General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInside the Founding Fathers' debate over what constituted an impeachable offense
By Erick Trickey
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
OCTOBER 2, 2017
... In the first week, Randolph, the 33-year-old Virginia governor, introduced the Virginia Plan, written by Madison ... After a short debate, the convention agreed to the language proposed in the Virginia Plan: the executive would be removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty a broad standard that the delegates would later rewrite ...
Shall any man be above justice? Mason asked. Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice? ... Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?
Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate. ... He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation embezzlementor oppression, Madison warned. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.
Randolph agreed on both these fronts. The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power ...
Limiting impeachment to treason and bribery cases, Mason warned on September 8, will not reach many great and dangerous offences ...
Mason proposed adding maladministration ...
... Madison objected ...
So Mason offered a substitute ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)... The convention adopted high crimes and misdemeanors with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used high crimes and misdemeanors as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of high crimes and misdemeanors were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament, granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve ...
For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The high crimes and misdemeanors that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information ...
https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html