On the record
Thaddeus Stevens, that "in order to sustain impeachment under the Constitution it is not necessary to prove a crime as an indictable offense, or any act malum in se.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “Thaddeus Stevens, that "in order to sustain impeachment under the Constitution it is not necessary to prove a crime as…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine cites Thaddeus Stevens' position that impeachment does not require proving a crime in the traditional sense.
Share
More from James Blaine
The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme.
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General…
Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
Other voices in this conversation
