Let’s move beyond
An official can be impeached for anything the House decides. Instead, the person must have actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
and to not fight the hypothetical assume a normal Senate
Contempt of Court for the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia by her department.
All other illegal deportations, including those of US citizens, by her department.
Violation of the Speech or Debate Clause for the removal and detention of Senator Padilla. Admittedly this one is a stretch as he was not in the Senate nor going there, but I feel she violated the spirit of the clause.
Are any of these things she could be impeached on and convicted given the criteria above?
Noem has committed impeachable offenses such as appointing unfit subordinates who are slow to follow court orders. She should be impeached and removed as soon as the votes for removal exist in the Senate, and not a day before or after.
In addition to Belknap, the Republicans led by MTG impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security for “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law”. Given this thread, the irony burns like holy water.
ETA: the charges were dismissed as the Senate felt that was not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Right, but for this thread, we are assuming real crimes, not impeachment as a political move.
Because he could have been banned from ever holding office again. Many Senators had an issue with jurisdiction viz. can you impeach someone no longer in office. Though they voted that yes they could try him, enough felt that they really had no jurisdiction and so he was acquitted.
The House decides what is impeachable and for now they won’t consider any offense impeachable unless Trump tells them to. So for all practical purposes, right now she has not committed an impeachable offense.
But that’s fighting the hypothetical.
The thread is about has she committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
We know IRL she won’t be impeached by a Republican House.
She may get impeached by a Democratic House if the Dems have a majority as a political statement a la Mayorkas. But she will never be convicted if there are 34+ MAGA Senators.
But that discussion is not this thread. Assuming the House only impeaches for real crimes, has Kristi Noem crossed that threshold?
I don’t want to derail your thread. My point would only apply to an argument that doesn’t account for the reality of that situation. IMO she has committed High Crimes and/or Misdemeanors based on the traditional interpretations of that designation. Anyone’s opinion on the matter is as good as another since it’s a political question not based on clearly defined law.
You do note that I did actually attempt to answer the question to your specs.
We dont know exactly what they meant, altho we do know that a "High crime’ was one where the death penalty could be imposed. Nothing she has done rises to that level, as I think we can all agree? What did they mean by 'the rest? We do not know.
So, the definition of what a High Crimes and Misdemeanors is entirely and completely a POLITICAL decision by the House of Representatives, see the Clinton Impeachment attempt.
So, you are asking a question that cannot be answered except in political terms- and the political definition is “whatever the House defines it as” (and if the Senate concurs for any removal, etc).
We have no other definition, altho we can guess what the Writers thought- which is what I answered.
If you want to limit the answers to ones you want- you have asked on the wrong Message Board.
Per Wikipedia, which I believe is correct here, a high crime, in the eighteenth century, was one that can only be done by a government official, such as accepting a bribe.
But I agree with most of what you wrote
As a political matter, it might be better for the Democrats to impeach the Secretary of Commerce (or is it the Treasury?) for imposing tariffs inconsistent with both international law and the Constitution The coming Christmas doll shortage will poll a lot worse than sending immigrants to El Salvador.
You are more precise here than I was- I may not have gotten the whole thing correct- I was using the older medieval definition of "High, vs Middle and Low Justice. This is not totally applicable, and other crimes were included- see
Definition of high crime
Definition:High crime refers to any act that is punishable by law and is considered a breach of legal duty. It is also known as a criminal wrong. The term crime includes both serious crimes like murder and minor crimes like overparking. However, the law recognizes that there are more serious and less serious crimes.
Murder is included in a High Crime. But so are others. Mind you in the Constitution, Treason and Bribery are included as examples- treason is punishable by death, but not bribery.
It is the undefined offenses of “high crimes and misdemeanors” which continues to be debated to this day.
We can glean an understanding of what was intended by the phrase from the records of the Constitutional Convention. Originally, “maladministration” was suggested by George Mason, who argued that treason and bribery were not sufficient to address any number of offenses that would “subvert the Constitution.” James Madison objected, however, contending that the term was too vague and subject to interpretation based on the political whims of the day. The executive, in that case, would become subservient to Congress. Mason instead suggested “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State,” which was adopted by a vote of 8-3. The substitution of the vague “maladministration” for an equally vague phrase, “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” perhaps suggests a parsing between incompetence and intentional malfeasance. When the Committee of Style dropped the words “against the State,” little insight was given into the decision for these word choices.
Yes, it is clear that whatever the Writers meant, the current law is "whatever the House decides is enough to indict) and if the Senate convicts. Clinton and trump were not convicted, nor was Johnson (Andrew, that is).
Mind you Noem has commited many abuses, which might be a hijack to go into here. I will say- IMHO- Noem is not fit to hold that office.
You quote the American Cornerstone Institute, the conservative think tank, founded by Ben Carson, that is a member of the advisory board of Project 2025?