John Prine is in Critical condition (hospitalized) with the virus! He has underlying health issues, is old, of course, and MAY not make it.
Say a prayer, any prayer, to the Maker for John.
It can't hurt!

We have an American icon at risk of death from this virus. A man with the heartbeat of our Country deep within his soul.
And his voice may be silenced by a virus, while lesser men fiddle.

"Lying" to the public during a crisis is not a crime - it's practically ubiquitous amongst 20th-century presidents. Perjury is a crime. There is a clear bright line you're choosing to ignore. So Clinton is a terrible counter-example. Johnson is a good one. The impeachment of Johnson is pretty much universally regarded as unconstitutional by historical and Constitutional scholars, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that one.

Impeachment is not an option for "unfitness and a danger to health and welfare." Conceivably one could remove a sitting president for such things under the 25th Amendment; it's not what it was written for, but you could stretch the wording to allow that. You can't impeach for it.

Again, this has everything to do with separation of powers. A President is not a Prime Minister. He does not serve at the pleasure of the Congress. If you make "competence" grounds for impeachment, in effect, you allow the Congress to dump any President they don't like or approve of. This effectively makes the executive subservient to the legislative and thus undermines the independence of the executive branch.

it is a matter of degree and circumstances.
i dont agree with your assessment of the law.
impeachment is for crimes and corruption and other things in neither category.

Ok. Let's all just make up our own governments whenever we want to work in whatever way is convenient to us.

Or, if you want to stick with our ACTUAL government, impeachment is for bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors.

It's not whatever list you want to write. The list is written. There are reasons why the Constitution is written the way it is written. It contains protections to ensure the stability of the system. In the short term, being unpopular and even objectively ineffective can feel like a very good basis for an impeachment. The guy is doing a bad job, you want to get rid of him. But it opens the door for erosion of separation of powers. The framers intentionally made it difficult for the instantaneous popular opinion to dictate policy or personnel. Read Federalist #51.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/30/2020 1:01:00 PM (view original):
"Lying" to the public during a crisis is not a crime - it's practically ubiquitous amongst 20th-century presidents. Perjury is a crime. There is a clear bright line you're choosing to ignore. So Clinton is a terrible counter-example. Johnson is a good one. The impeachment of Johnson is pretty much universally regarded as unconstitutional by historical and Constitutional scholars, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that one.

Impeachment is not an option for "unfitness and a danger to health and welfare." Conceivably one could remove a sitting president for such things under the 25th Amendment; it's not what it was written for, but you could stretch the wording to allow that. You can't impeach for it.

Again, this has everything to do with separation of powers. A President is not a Prime Minister. He does not serve at the pleasure of the Congress. If you make "competence" grounds for impeachment, in effect, you allow the Congress to dump any President they don't like or approve of. This effectively makes the executive subservient to the legislative and thus undermines the independence of the executive branch.

I agree with this, at least in theory. Or, in a perfect world (note to self--listen to Bill Lloyd's "Set To Pop")........ that is so.
further I believe you are correct within your assumption of the "intent" of our framers.

I don't even take issue with your point regarding Clinton, assuming that "perjury" is a serious enough act to warrant the constitutional language. Never mind the fact that "perjury" is committed in every Court of nearly every jurisdiction in this land without enforcement.

Here's the rub, the but. THIS ain't a perfect world and you're evading my point.
The present conclusion I proffer is that we've already devolved Constitutionally past the ideal you defend.
Bluntly put, for quite a while now each branch of our Government has considered itself to be "effectively" dominant.
Congress (or the majority within, when in POWER, either Party!) believes IT gets to determine the Constitutional meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and has acted accordingly more than once!
Until they actually succeed at (perhaps) violating the provisional Constitutional mandate regarding impeachment and it is challenged to the Supreme Court your idealism is misplaced and kinda moot.
Congress will continue to decide what is Constitutional "high crimes", or "misdemeanors" themselves and whether YOU or I like it (or not) is not very relevant.

As to the bit about Presidential lying in general.
Now, my idealism surfaces. I tend to believe that, evidence to the contrary, that is NOT so. That NOT "practically" every President of the 20th century made a practice of lying to the public during a crisis. Particularly habitually, foolishly, and needlessly.
Did Eisenhower lie to us when he took the rather bold step of publicly warning us of the strength and power of the M.I.C.??
When did Jimmy Carter lie to us in a public crisis? I don't remember that?
Much more recently, what crisis did Pres. Obama lie to us about?

As an aside I didn't make any claim that just because Trump is a habitual (inveterate) liar Congress should impeach him. Nowhere did I state that.
Churchhill is regarded by History as the epitome of quality leadership in a time of crisis. He didn't lie to the British people.

The state of adherence to our Constitution (more correctly stated--the INTENT of the framers of our Constitution) in today's time, NOW---- IS what it is!
Not so much.
Congress's willingness to abide any theoretical restraint to their ability to decide for themselves what is impeachable is demonstrably limited.
Thus, your idealism regarding the Constitutionality of impeachment for purposeful negligence of duty, stated lawfully as dereliction of the public trust in violation of the OATH of office to "protect and defend...", while admirable idealism, is wholly misplaced!

You must be older than me...........to be such an idealist!
Or perhaps, you've been fortunate in life and haven't experienced mankind's shortcomings as much as many of us.
Either way.
Salud.
Stay safe, keep your head down, and a safe distance from all on 2 legs!

The impeachment hearings fleshed it out it is not limited to statutory crimes it is a political method to get rid of a dangerous president if trump refused to use defense production act in dire need he could be impeached

a pastor in Louisiana bunched in 550 faithful flock of sheep into his house of God for a whole lotta shake rattle and roll yesterday.
a fine human bean and a great man of God.
nice people led to slaughter by corrupt leader

Jim Jones. We handle snakes y'all.

the november election needs to be thought about and planned now with all the contingencies and it better be about maximum ability to vote and
for the sake of democracy.
if things have improved we dont want a new wave.

how is it possible for the governor of florida to be so incredibly dumb and intentionally dangerous.
bad guy.

very interesting story in new york times about how tom cotton was in front of the pandemic with urgent warnings to trump and admin in January.
important information in the history of the american story of the virus.