Instructional planning & strategies task Essay Example for Free

Instructional planning strategies task Essay On the past times the Florida State Standards for Mathematics had a problem and some comments for revision was proposed on it. Fortunately all the conflicts encountered were already ended well. Through the help of the Florida Department of Education the State Standards for mathematics had improved and developed. This was a guide for the level standards particularly grade 6-8 stating those that the students should learn and what they can do at the grade level intervals eventually. The following are one of the standards for each level followed by the corresponding goals and objectives. Standard for Grades 6-8: Students already know the concept of numbers and some mathematical operations. However, for a specific grade, the goal and objectives are heighten as each student upgrades or proceeds to its new level, considering the knowledge they have gained from previous grades. Grade 6: Goal: students figure out whether the existing numbers are fractions, decimals, percents, scientific notations, exponent, radicals and absolute value by just looking at its form. Objectives: At the end of the school year the students are expected to do the following so that they will be well familiar with the other branching and composition of numbers. 1. write and categorize numbers according to their forms (e. g. fractions, decimals, exponents) 2. convert a given amount of number in fraction, decimal or scientific notation, and state it correctly. 3. tell whether numbers articulated in diverse forms are identical through some board works. Grade 7: Goal: students must clarify eventually the four fundamental operations used for whole numbers, fractions as well as mixed numbers and decimals, the opposite relationship of positive and negative numbers Objectives: At the end the students are able to fulfill the following because the relevance of the operations will be useful in dealing with other mathematical matters. 1. enumerate results of four fundamental operations on whole numbers and the forms mentioned above. This is to show that the students already know something about it. 2. make use visuals to present the connections of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division on its dealing with different forms of numbers to show that children are not confused of it. 3. state and pertain clearly the properties of rational numbers in solving mathematical problems. Grade 8: Goal: eventually the students are aware of and make use of exponential and scientific notation. Therefore, the students must perform indicated operations on examinations board works and group activities. Objectives: the students in due course can do the expected performance for the assurance that coped up already the knowledge in the whole number system. 1. write and recite numbers in exponential notations even if these numbers contain negative exponents 2.tell correctly numbers ranging from 0 to 1 converted in scientific notations 3. appraise numerical or algebraic expressions that enclose exponential notation so as to prove that they are able to surpass various forms of training in numbers for the previous years. Reference: Focus on Success: A REVIEW OF THE FLORIDA SUNSHINE STATE STANDARDS FOR RIGOR AND ALIGNMENT TO COLLEGE READINESS, Retrieved August 25, 2007, http://etc. usf. edu/flstandards/math/College_Board. pdf.

The Word Nigger Essays -- Definition History Nigga Nigger Black Essays

The Word "Nigger" â€Å"My niggas. Some niggas that you don’t wanna try.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   My niggas. Some niggas that’s really do or die.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   My niggas. Ain’t no longer living a lie.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   My niggas is stong. My niggas is real.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Does this artist use the word nigger in the same way that racists have and still are? The answer to this question is a simple one- no. Today’s urban society have changed, not only the definition, but also the spelling of this word, which was once used to belittle those of African-American decent. Now, the definition as proved through today’s urban youth holds many denotations- positive and negative. But has the definition really changed? Or are today’s urban society just being ignorant and socially blinded by the hardships of our ancestors as they continue to use a word that held such great racial tension when used in the 1800’s? Two answers for this one- yes and no. Yes the definition has changed, but not totally to where it’s precedent has been forgotten. In fact, urban youth are so socially powerful that they can take a word and totally flip it and use it within themselves but when one of another race uses it, they return it b ack to the old definition and the racial remarks commence.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The definitions of the word nigger are as follows: 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  a Negro 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  loosely or incorrectly applied to members of dark-skinned race 3.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  a vulgar offensive term of hostility and contempt as used by Negrophobes Nigger (etymology) 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Latin niger becomes Spanish and Portugese Negro used in France for â€Å"black man† especially in Africa adapted by the English 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  latin niger, for black, occurs in such river names as the Rio Negro in South America and the Niger f Central West Africa. When used by a white person to describe a black or African American person, this can be the most hateful hurtful, offensive term in the language today. This word in American speech dates back to the late 16th century, although the modern spelling doesn't appear until two centuries later. The obsolete spelling niger dates to 1574. It derives from the Latin niger meaning black. It shares this common root with negro. The first recorded use of the word nigger was in 1786 in a poem by Robert Burns yet variations on it including negar, neger, and niger are recorded two centuries before then. The offensiveness of the term has increased ov... ...ds in the air and scream. In this thesis, I’ve actually learned a few things. From looking up the word in etymology books, I concluded that the society has come to realize that we do use the word amongst ourselves but never to the extent to which it has been used centuries ago towards our ancestors. One book quotes â€Å"†¦African Americans commonly use the word in different ways among themelves†¦Ã¢â‚¬  1. DMX, Interlude, (Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood, 1998) 2. â€Å"Nigger.† The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ed. 1973 3. DMX, Interlude, (Flesh of My Flesh, Blood of My Blood, 1998) 4. â€Å"Nigger.† The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ed. 1973 5. â€Å"Nigger† Webster’s Third New International Dictionry 6. â€Å"Nigger† A Short Etymologica Dictionary of Modern English ORIGINS ed 1966 7. â€Å"Nigga† Dictionary for American Slang ed. 1995 8. Twain, Mark Hulckeberry Finn 9. Rice Jr., Earl The O.J.Simpson Trial San Diego, CA:Lucent Books Inc, 1997 10. Peterson, Nina. Personal interview. 2 June 2000 11. Punisher, Big. Watch Those! (Yeaah Baby!, 2000) 12. Rush Hour (movie) 13. Scoop, Fat Man, Brooklyn Clan (Hot 97’s mix tape) 14. â€Å"Nigger† Encyclopedia of Word and Phase Origins ed 1997

The Miranda warning

IntroductionFor even the most casual viewer of police television shows, the cry of â€Å"read me my rights† has been heard from the lips of accused criminals as frequently as anything else.   Beyond this statement, however, lies a real life drama- The Miranda Warning.   Where this warning came from, its true meaning and intent, as well as what the future should hold for The Miranda Warning are all pivotal questions which will be answered in the course of this research in order to better understand not only Miranda, but the overall American criminal justice system and its approach to the rights of those accused of crimes.What is the Miranda Warning?To begin, the origins of The Miranda Warning itself, as well as the actual verbiage of the warning, need to be understood.   Originally, The Miranda Warning came forth from the legal case of Ernesto Miranda, the focus of the 1963 Supreme Court Case Miranda v. Arizona   (Lyman, 2004).   Essentially, the facts of the case are as follows: Ernesto Miranda was arrested, accused of the rape of a mildly mentally handicapped woman.   At the time of his arrest, Miranda was not advised by the arresting officer that he had the Constitutional right to remain silent, to choose not to answer questions without an attorney present, and to not be forced to offer any information that would be used against him in any legal case.Eventually, Miranda’s attorney argued that Miranda’s confession to the crime should be thrown out of court, because it was obtained without Miranda being advised of his rights.   The original judge in the case denied this motion, but eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that the statements that Miranda originally made to the police should be disregarded because he was not read his rights (Robertson, 1997).   As a result of this pivotal ruling, a standardized warning, therein known as The Miranda Warning, was instituted by all police forces in the United States, and recited to a nyone accused of a crime before being questioned.   The full text of the warning is as follows:â€Å"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?† (Robertson, 1997, p. 161)  Ultimately, the warning was effectively made much shorter and easier for suspects to und erstand, presented as follows:â€Å"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.† (Robertson, 1997, p. 162).With The Miranda Warning having been refined and put in place, one would make the assumption that the rights of individuals are protected, and the police are safeguarded against having key evidence dismissed on a technicality, but the opposite is actually the case.   Further research has revealed pivotal issues surrounding The Miranda Warning.Pivotal Issues Surrounding the Miranda WarningThe Miranda Warning faces heavy controversy both from the viewpoint of the criminal justice system and the accused criminal.   For police and the courts, Miranda is sometimes argued against, as the claim is made that the Warning prevents the s wift investigation of criminal matters due to the lack of divulgence of important information during questioning that could literally save lives or property; this has especially become true in the modern era of terrorism, when foreign suspects, many argue, need to be compelled to give information immediately so that potential terror plots can be diffused before mass murder occurs.However, for the accused and the attorneys that represent them, Miranda is seen as something that is necessary in order to keep police from either misinterpreting the statements of suspects, coercing confessions out of suspects through psychological means, or by actually resorting to violence to literally beat a confession out of the suspect (Miranda’s Enemies, 2000).   Based on the two sides of the issue, the pivotal issue is clear: how can Miranda be used in a way that protects victims, aids law enforcement and promotes common order, while still giving accused criminals the entitlements of due pr ocess as guaranteed by the Constitution?   There is no clear answer to how this can be achieved, but on both the federal and state levels, the issue has been explored.States’ Views of the Miranda WarningSome states have taken a more generous view of the use of Miranda than others, resulting in cases being brought to appeal in the supreme courts of those states.   The landmark case in this regard, cited over the past several years, is Missouri v. Seibert.   The basic facts of this case were that police in the state of Missouri were reading Miranda to suspects only after they began questioning them, and they would then continue to question after the reading, in an effort to confuse a suspect.With this approach, the suspect, even if their statements made before the reading were dismissed, would still likely have some statements made after the reading that would be incriminating.   Calling this a â€Å"two-step† around the Constitution, this practice was eventually ruled illegal by a Missouri court (Leo, 1996).   This also brings up another important technicality- the need to provide Miranda to everyone being questioned by police, or only those who are officially placed under arrest.   The net effect of all of this is to greatly muddy the legal waters and make the use of Miranda, or the lack of it, a hot legal topic on both sides of the courtroom bench, so to speak.   Therefore, many states have looked to the federal government to issue universal decrees on Miranda.Constitutional View of the Miranda WarningEvery accused criminal has classically been protected by the Constitution, specifically by the First and Fifth Amendments as an example.   Essentially, all of the debates about Miranda have filtered down to a few Constitutional standards, which of course are not set in stone due to the dynamic nature of the American justice system, but are worthy of discussion in this research.   Generally speaking, the Supreme Court of the United States, based on cases like Missouri v. Seibert, has ruled that neither the accused in a criminal case, nor those arrested in a criminal case need to be â€Å"Mirandized† as it has come to be called.However, there is a caution to be noted- if the individual is not made aware of their rights, there is the possibility that statements they make can be dismissed in a legal case against them since the information was technically obtained in an illegal manner by the law enforcement personnel who obtained it in the first place (Nooter, 2005).   Again, there is a legal tightrope to be walked here, between what can be done to protect individual rights of accused and victim alike, while still serving the interests of justice and fulfilling the role of law enforcement in society.   A key question leads to the conclusion of the research- what should be done about Miranda?Conclusion- What Should be Done about the Miranda Warning?In wondering what should be done about Miranda, there i s something that needs to be laid out right off- there is no ideal criminal justice system, and the guilty will sometimes avoid punishment, and unfortunately, the innocent will be punished as well.   However, this being said, there need to be safeguards in place to make sure that the police do not falsely generate evidence against accused criminals, and as well, that the truly guilty do not escape justice.   Therefore, in closing, it is one humble opinion that Miranda should be kept in place, closely monitored as it has been.   While it is flawed in some areas, to discard it wholesale would be much worse than the present situation.ReferencesLeo, R. A. (1996). The Impact of Miranda Revisited. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(3), 621-692.Lyman, M.D. (2004).   Criminal Investigation: The Art and Science.   New York: Prentice Hall.Miranda's Enemies. (2000, May 15). The Nation, 270, 4.Nooter, D. S. (2005). Is Missouri V. Seibert Practicable? Supreme Court Dances the â€Å"Two-Step† around Miranda. American Criminal Law Review, 42(3), 1093+.Robertson, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Human Rights. London: Europa Publications.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Impeachment

â€Å"High Crimes and Misdemeanors† is the rather ambiguous phrase most often cited as grounds for the impeachment of U.S. federal government officials, including the President of the United States. What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Background Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, â€Å"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.† The Constitution also provides the steps of the impeachment process leading to the possible removal from office of the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials. Briefly, the impeachment process is initiated in the House of Representatives and follows these steps: The House Judiciary Committee considers evidence, holds hearings, and if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment – the actual charges against the official.If a majority of the Judiciary Committee votes to approve the articles of impeachment, the full House debates and votes on them.If a simple majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any or all of the articles of impeachment, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.If a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate votes to convict the official, the official is immediately removed from office. In addition, the Senate may also vote to forbid the official from holding any federal office in the future. While Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties, such as prison or fines, impeached and convicted officials may subsequently be tried and punished in the courts if they have committed criminal acts. The specific grounds for impeachment set by the Constitution are, â€Å"treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.† In order to be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official had committed at least one of these acts. What are Treason and Bribery? The crime of treason is clearly defined by the Constitution in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.† The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. In these two paragraphs, the Constitution empowers the United States Congress to specifically create the crime of treason. As a result, treason is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress as codified in the United States Code at 18 U.S.C.  § 2381, which states: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. The Constitution’s requirement that a conviction for treason requires the supporting testimony of two witnesses comes from the British Treason Act 1695. Bribery is not defined in the Constitution. However, bribery has long been recognized in English and American common law as an act in which a person gives any official of the government money, gifts, or services to influence that official’s behavior in office. To date, no federal official has faced impeachment based on grounds of treason. While one federal judge was impeached and removed from the bench for advocating  in favor of succession and serving as a judge for the Confederacy during the Civil War, the impeachment was based on charges of refusing to hold court as sworn, rather than treason. Only two officials—both federal judges—have faced impeachment based on charges that specifically involved bribery or accepting gifts from litigants and both were removed from office. All of the other impeachment proceedings held against all federal officials to date have been based on charges of â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors.† What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors? The term â€Å"high crimes† is often assumed to mean â€Å"felonies.† However, felonies are major crimes, while misdemeanors are less serious crimes. So under this interpretation, â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† would refer to any crime, which is not the case. Where Did the Term Come From? At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers of the Constitution viewed impeachment to be an essential part of the system of separation of powers providing each of the three branches of government ways to check the powers of the other branches. Impeachment, they reasoned, would give the legislative branch one means of checking the power of the executive branch. Many of the framers considered Congress’ power to impeach federal judges to be of great importance since they would be appointed for life. However, some of the framers opposed providing for the impeachment of executive branch officials, because the power of the president could be checked every four years by the American people through the electoral process. In the end, James Madison of Virginia convinced a majority of the delegates that being able to replace a president only once every four years did not adequately check the powers of a president who became physically unable to serve or abused the executive powers. As Madison argued, â€Å"loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic† if the president could be replaced only through an election. The delegates then considered the grounds for impeachment. A select committee of delegates recommended â€Å"treason or bribery† as the only grounds. However, George Mason of Virginia, feeling that bribery and treason were only two of the many ways a president could willfully harm the republic, proposed adding â€Å"maladministration† to the list of impeachable offenses. James Madison argued that â€Å"maladministration† was so vague that it might allow Congress to remove presidents based purely on a political or ideological bias. This, argued Madison, would violate the separation of powers by giving the legislative branch total power over the executive branch. George Mason agreed with Madison and proposed â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.† In the end, the convention reached a compromise and adopted â€Å"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors† as it appears in the Constitution today. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained the concept of impeachment to the people, defining impeachable offenses as â€Å"those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.† According to the History, Arts, and Archives of the House of Representatives, impeachment proceedings against federal officials have been initiated more than 60 times since the Constitution was ratified in 1792. Of those, fewer than 20 have resulted in actual impeachment and only eight – all federal judges – have been convicted by the Senate and removed from office. The â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† alleged to have been  committed by the impeached judges have included using their position for financial gain, showing overt favoritism to litigants, income tax evasion, the disclosure of confidential information, unlawfully charging people with contempt of court, filing false expense reports, and habitual drunkenness. To date, only three cases of impeachment have involved presidents: Andrew  Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. While none of them were convicted in the Senate and removed from office through impeachment, their cases help reveal Congress’ likely interpretation of â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors.† Andrew Johnson As the lone U.S. Senator from a Southern state to remain loyal to the Union during the Civil War, Andrew Johnson was chosen by President Abraham Lincoln to be his vice-presidential running mate in the 1864 election. Lincoln had believed Johnson, as vice president, would help in negotiating with the South. However, shortly after taking over the presidency due to  Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, Johnson, a Democrat, ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over the Reconstruction of the South. As fast as Congress passed Reconstruction legislation, Johnson would veto it. Just as quickly, Congress would override his veto. The growing political friction came to a head when Congress, over Johnson’s veto, passed the long ago repealed Tenure of Office Act, which required the president to get the approval  of Congress to fire any executive branch appointee that had been confirmed by Congress. Never one to back down to Congress, Johnson immediately fried Republican secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Though Stanton’s firing clearly violated the Tenure of Office Act, Johnson simply stated that the considered the act to be unconstitutional. In response, the House passed 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson as follows: Eight for violations of the Tenure of Office Act;One for using improper channels to send orders to executive branch officers;One for conspiring against Congress by publicly stating that Congress did not truly represent the Southern states; andOne for failure to enforce various provisions of the Reconstruction Acts. The Senate, however, voted on only three of the charges, finding Johnson not guilty by a single vote in each case. While the charges against Johnson are considered to have been politically motivated and not worthy of impeachment today, they serve as an example of actions that have been interpreted as â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors.† Richard Nixon Shortly after Republican President Richard Nixon had easily won re-election to a second term in 1972, it was revealed that during the election, persons with ties to the Nixon campaign had broken into the Democratic Party national headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. While it was never proven that Nixon had known about or ordered the Watergate burglary, the famed Watergate tapes – voice recordings of Oval Office conversations – would confirm that Nixon had personally attempted to obstruct the Justice Department’s Watergate investigation. On the tapes, Nixon is heard suggesting paying the burglars â€Å"hush money† and ordering the FBI and CIA to influence the investigation in his favor. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment charging Nixon with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress by his refusal to honor the committee’s requests to produce related documents. While never admitting having a role in either the burglary or the cover-up, Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, before the full House voted on the articles of impeachment against him. â€Å"By taking this action,† he said in a televised address from the Oval Office, â€Å"I hope that I will have hastened the start of the process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.† Nixon’s vice president and successor, President Gerald Ford eventually pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office. Interestingly, the Judiciary Committee had refused to vote on a proposed article of impeachment charging Nixon with tax evasion because the members did not consider it to be an impeachable offense. The committee based its opinion of a special House staff report titled, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, which concluded, â€Å"Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.† Bill Clinton First elected in 1992, President Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996. Scandal in Clinton’s administration began during his first term when the Justice Department appointed an independent counsel to investigate the president’s involvement in â€Å"Whitewater,† a failed land development investment deal that had taken place in Arkansas some 20 years earlier.   The Whitewater investigation blossomed to include scandals including Clinton’s questionable firing of members of the White House travel office, referred to as â€Å"Travelgate,† the misuse of confidential FBI records, and of course, Clinton’s infamous illicit affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. In 1998, a report to the House Judiciary Committee from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr listed 11  potentially impeachable offenses, all related only to the Lewinsky scandal. The Judiciary Committee passed four articles of impeachment accusing Clinton of: Perjury in his testimony before a grand jury assembled by Starr;Providing â€Å"perjurious, false and misleading testimony† in a separate lawsuit related to the Lewinsky affair;Obstruction of justice in an attempt to â€Å"delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence† of evidence; andAbuse and misuse of presidential powers by lying to the public, misinforming his cabinet and White House staff to gain their public support, wrongly claiming executive privilege, and refusing to respond to the committee’s questions. Legal and constitutional experts who testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing gave differing opinions of what â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† might be. Experts called by congressional Democrats testified that none of Clinton’s alleged acts amounted to â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. These experts cited Yale Law School professor Charles L. Black’s 1974 book, Impeachment: A Handbook, in which he argued that impeaching a president effectively overturns an election and thus the will of the people. As a result, Black reasoned, presidents should be impeached and removed from office only if proven guilty of â€Å"serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,† or for â€Å"such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.† Black’s book cites two examples of acts that, while federal crimes, would not warrant the impeachment of a president: transporting a minor across state lines for â€Å"immoral purposes† and obstructing justice by helping a White House staff member conceal marijuana. On the other hand, experts called by congressional Republicans argued that in his acts related to the Lewinsky affair, President Clinton had violated his oath to uphold the laws and failed to faithfully carry out his duties as the government’s chief law enforcement officer. In the Senate trial, where 67 votes are required to remove an impeached official from office, only 50 Senators voted to remove Clinton on charges of obstruction of justice and only 45 Senators voted to remove him on the charge of perjury. Like Andrew Johnson a century before him, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. Last Thoughts on ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ In 1970, then-Representative Gerald Ford, who would become president after the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, made a notable statement about the charges of â€Å"high crimes and misdemeanors† in impeachment. After several failed attempts to convince the House to impeach a liberal Supreme Court justice, Ford stated that â€Å"an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.† Ford reasoned that â€Å"there are few fixed principles among the handful of precedents.† According to constitutional lawyers, Ford was both right and wrong. He was right in the sense that the Constitution does give the House the exclusive power to initiate impeachment. The vote of the House to issue articles of impeachment cannot be challenged in the courts. However, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to remove officials from office due to political or ideological disagreements. In order to ensure the integrity of the separation of powers, the framers of the Constitution intended that Congress should use its impeachment powers only when executive officials had committed â€Å"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors† which substantially damaged the integrity and effectiveness of government.