It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitutional Provision for Assassination

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
According to this -

www.parapolitical.com...

- the founders created impeachment for politicians who were likely to be assassinated otherwise.


On July 20, 1787, Benjamin Franklin remarked "History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination …"


On that basis should Bill Clinton really have been impeached?

 

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites
please post one or two paragraphs,
a link to the entire story,
AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item,
as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


edit on Thu Jul 5 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   




Not exactly sure what your asking here. Clinton was impeached. He just wasnt removed from office by congress. He was definitely impeached though.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   




Yes, that's what I said.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Castillo
According to this -

www.parapolitical.com...

- the founders created impeachment for politicians who were likely to be assassinated otherwise.


On July 20, 1787, Benjamin Franklin remarked "History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination …"


On that basis should Bill Clinton really have been impeached?


Assuming that he was actually impeached....well.....yes. The word "obnoxious" comes to mind here. On the other hand, I don't think being obnoxious is really a crime worthy of impeachment or assassination.

He was never impeached though. The charges were brought against him, but not enough votes were had to kick him out.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


Ok. So you are asking if that was the wrong move? Saying we should have assassinated him instead? I am still fuzzy on what your getting at.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4DuecesWild

Originally posted by Castillo
According to this -

www.parapolitical.com...

- the founders created impeachment for politicians who were likely to be assassinated otherwise.


On July 20, 1787, Benjamin Franklin remarked "History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination …"


On that basis should Bill Clinton really have been impeached?


Assuming that he was actually impeached....well.....yes. The word "obnoxious" comes to mind here. On the other hand, I don't think being obnoxious is really a crime worthy of impeachment or assassination.

He was never impeached though. The charges were brought against him, but not enough votes were had to kick him out.


Wrong. He was impeached. He was not removed from office by congress. That would have given Al Gore too much time in the big chair and giving people too much of a voting option. But make no mistake. He WAS impeached and saying otherwise is absolutely false.

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.history.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.mahalo.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I'm not entirely clear of what the OP is getting at, but yes, Clinton was impeached. The constitution defines the basis for impeachment as committing a high crime or misdemeanor. It doesn't really matter what a law review article proposes as being a more historically grounded reason for impeachment. Of course, defining exactly what a high crime or misdemeanor is (or was in 1789), is the million dollar question.

If we're using the article's basis for impeachment, than no, diddling your intern is not a reason a head of state should be assassinated.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


An assassination is defined generally as: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."[1][2] Alternatively, assassination may be defined as "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."

Source


Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

Source

Impeachment in the United States:

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

Source

Considering assassination is just another name for an act of murder, and empeachment is actually a legal process, I certainly don't see any comparison.

Mr. Clinton was, indeed, impeached by the US Congress. His trial in the US Senate, however, ended with an acquittal, and it's quite obvious that he wasn't assasinated.

I feel that your source is nothing more than rubbish!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos
I'm not entirely clear of what the OP is getting at, but yes, Clinton was impeached. The constitution defines the basis for impeachment as committing a high crime or misdemeanor. It doesn't really matter what a law review article proposes as being a more historically grounded reason for impeachment.


The constitution doesn't "define" anything at all. The constitution establishes the basis for things, such as impeachment. The definition or theory behind those things is left to primary texts which include case law, and even the period writings and thoughts of the framers. On many occasions the Supreme Court has referenced the Federalist Papers, or records of debates during the constitutional convention, to define or interpret the intent or meaning behind specific phrases in the constitution.

For instance, in Printz v. United States, SCOTUS quoted Alexander Hamilton's private editorial writings to provide context to the 2nd Amendment, which resulted in certain parts of the Brady Handgun Act being held unconstitutional.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Castillo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Castillo
 


An assassination is defined generally as: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."[1][2] Alternatively, assassination may be defined as "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."

Source


Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

Source

Impeachment in the United States:

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

Source

Considering assassination is just another name for an act of murder, and empeachment is actually a legal process, I certainly don't see any comparison.

Mr. Clinton was, indeed, impeached by the US Congress. His trial in the US Senate, however, ended with an acquittal, and it's quite obvious that he wasn't assasinated.

I feel that your source is nothing more than rubbish!

See ya,
Milt


1. it's spelled "impeachment"
2. thanks for the "sources" (wikipedia) ... I giggled

later bater,
C
edit on 5-7-2012 by Castillo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis
reply to post by Castillo
 


Ok. So you are asking if that was the wrong move? Saying we should have assassinated him instead? I am still fuzzy on what your getting at.


Message boards are a great democratizer as they allow many people of different educational and intellectual pedigrees mix together. However, sometimes certain threads will be of interest to one type and not of interest to another.

Perhaps - and I say this based only on your expression of confusion or your explanation that you're having difficulty grasping the thesis concepts here - this isn't the right thread for you?

There are many threads on ATS and I found a couple others you might enjoy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, this is not a slur or insult, simply gentle guidance to help you realize a fulfilling online experience today.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


1. it's spelled "impeachment"

I reckon you've never made a typo, huh. Well, good for you!


2. thanks for the "sources" (wikipedia) ... I giggled

I'm glad they tickled your "funny bone". When you're done giggling, perhaps you should read them. You obviously don't know the difference between "assassination" and "impeachment".

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Castillo
 


1. it's spelled "impeachment"

I reckon you've never made a typo, huh. Well, good for you!


2. thanks for the "sources" (wikipedia) ... I giggled

I'm glad they tickled your "funny bone". When you're done giggling, perhaps you should read them. You obviously don't know the difference between "assassination" and "impeachment".

See ya,
Milt


Again, I don't think you understand the conceptual or theoretical intent of the article.

The idea that was being advanced was that the framers intended impeachment to be reserved for cases where - in the absence of it - an assassination would have occurred. Ergo, in judging the standards for impeachment the framers intended the impeaching authority (the House) to consider what alternatives would naturally occur in a civil society in the absence of that statutory provision.

I understand that ATS brings together many people of different educational backgrounds. For many of those, Wikipedia may be pinnacle of their knowledge about the world and they don't have the benefit of formal academic refinement and the ability to cogitate on the meaning behind words and phrases that comes with that. I'm confident there are other threads you can find that will satisfy you.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Castillo
The idea that was being advanced was that the framers intended impeachment to be reserved for cases where - in the absence of it - an assassination would have occurred. Ergo, in judging the standards for impeachment the framers intended the impeaching authority (the House) to consider what alternatives would naturally occur in a civil society in the absence of that statutory provision.


Since JFK was hugely popular with the public as well as internationally, perhaps The House decided to use that provision?

Just throwing it out there...



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Castillo
The idea that was being advanced was that the framers intended impeachment to be reserved for cases where - in the absence of it - an assassination would have occurred. Ergo, in judging the standards for impeachment the framers intended the impeaching authority (the House) to consider what alternatives would naturally occur in a civil society in the absence of that statutory provision.


Since JFK was hugely popular with the public as well as internationally, perhaps The House decided to use that provision?

Just throwing it out there...


lol +1



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not the affair, most people do not know this



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bo12au
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not the affair, most people do not know this


Correct ... so, using Benjamin Franklin's standards for gravity of malfeasance to determine justification for impeachment, if no impeachment provision in the constitution existed would there have been a risk of assassination for perjury (as impeachment was intended to provide a higher degree of civilization in politics and stop the threat of assassinations)?

In my opinion, no, there would not have been. On this basis, according to framer's intent, impeachment was not justified.

The original article Minnesota Law Review provides an interesting counter-scenario ... what if Clinton was not impeached for a legal malfeasance related to abuse of office (perjury), but for a personal crime of great magnitude?


Judge Posner offers the following hypothetical: suppose that President Clinton, “using none of the resources of his office and so being innocent of any misuse of Presidential power, had killed Monica Lewinsky with his bare hands in order to prevent her from cooperating with the Independent Counsel.”553 Surely, Posner concludes, this would be impeachable, for “Americans will not be ruled by a Nero or a Caligula.”554 Indeed, and it bears noting that Caligula was assassinated,555 and Nero committed suicide facing assassination556—history of which the Founding generation was well aware.5


www.minnesotalawreview.org...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join