Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the confusion if we had a single, snappy word for “remove from office”. I suggest the word “Shitcan”. I don’t think it would be difficult to get folks to rally around the phrase: “Shitcan Trump!”
I think that after it’s all over and the dust has settled, American English will have acquired a new verb: “twenty-fifthed,” as in “The 25th amendment was invoked successfully against a president, and he was removed from office,” or, “The president was 25th’d.” Unless the spelling “25thed” is preferred.
Right now, I’m putting the odds at about 34% for impeachment, and 66% for 25th amendment for how Trump gets out of office. I can imagine another way, and might put it at around 1.5% but I don’t want to spell it out, because that’s not cool.
Words have no inherent meaning. The only meaning of any word is that assigned to it by speakers of that language. Some legal words are defined in statutes or contracts for purposes of understanding their use in those specific laws or contracts, but those don’t govern use of those same terms elsewhere.
There are many words whose meanings have evolved over time and which are now included in dictionaries with meanings that were at one time “incorrect” but which have now become accepted even by dictionary-writers and those who worship them.
WRT impeachment specifically, it’s commonly used colloquially to refer to the entire impeachment process including conviction by the Senate and removal from office. Some people are apt to use it in the more technically correct original meaning, especially political-science type people, constitutional scholars and the like.
Bottom line is that, as with all these language-related matters, it depends on the context in which the word is being used and on the nature of the person using it. Sometimes it will be clear that the speaker or writer intends one meaning and sometimes it will be clear that he means the other. Either is fine. If it’s unclear, then you can always ask.
I hope not, since that will be just another example of misuse of a term.
First Amendment solution? Third? Fourth? What am I missing…?
If someone challenges it, there’s some confusion about which definition was used. It’s totally possible the challenger is just being a pedantic tweaker, deliberately misconstruing the statement, in which case, reverse-correcting them for being a pedantic tweaker is totally copacetic. If they genuinely misunderstood what the statement meant, then a clarification is in order.
Well said. Too often people treat situations like this as opportunities to score points. At best, it’s a chance to clarify.
It is just one of life’s games. I’d like to hear of someone who says a president should be impeached who only means articles passed in the House and a trial in the Senate without removal from office, but as I mentioned above, call a whale a fish and someone will say ‘mammal’. But even George Costanzahas his day when the context is right.
Saying “Impeach Trump!” and I understand how the word is being used colloquially as a shorthand in context.
Saying “No US President has ever been impeached” and I understand that the speaker doesn’t know what the word means.
eta: did you know you can choose multiple poll options?
The problem with that [del]definition[/del] meaning is that impeachment does not occur until and unless a majority in the House votes to bring charges, triggering a trial in the Senate. “Hearing in the House” may not result in a vote to bring charges, so in and of itself, it (the hearing[s]) does not constitute impeachment.
The correct meaning of the word was not offered in the poll, so I selected “something else.”
None of the choices are correct. Being “impeached” isn’t a “hearing in the House”. Being “impeached” means that the House of Representatives has voted to “impeach” the official in question. This results in the Senate having a “trial” to determine whether to “convict” the official of the charges on which the House has “impeached” him/her.
Clearly, “impeached” does not mean the same as “impeached and convicted” or “impeached and removed from office”.
Sure, I can safely assume what they mean. Trouble is, I can also safely assume they don’t know what they are talking about.
How about “Dump Trump”?
Not all crystals are transparent. 
Regards,
Shodan
The irony is that they may very well know what they’re talking about; a person who realizes words can have multiple definitions knows what they’re talking about more than you do, and so your assumption is directed at the wrong person :).
Another possibility is that they know well what they’re talking about, disagree with you about the best way to use words and the importance of technically proper usage, and are unconcerned with your scorn.
I myself am well aware of the technical meaning of the word “impeachment”, and have been so since at least as far back as the Clinton impeachment, which I followed closely. But I also use term to mean “impeach, convict and remove from office” if I think it’s likely that that’s how the listeners will understand it.
People don’t care nearly enough about my scorn, more’s the pity.
That’s far from crystalline.
Regards,
Shodan
I would not be so sure about that second part. There are a lot of folks out there completely ignorant of history.
So?
I made no claim for an inherent meaning.
However, the word has an explicit meaning in law–which is the only place that it is overwhelmingly used–and “popular” uses of the word simply confuse issues when different people say and (mis)understand what other people say and (mis)understand in conversation.
In that context, a word may, indeed, be misunderstood. That ten minutes of haggling over the legal definition can sort out the intended meaning in no way indicates that a misunderstanding did not occur.
In the US Constitution, certainly. " 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 of officers of the U.S. national government."
Not all levels/regions of government use that two step system, however.
Yes, I shortened “House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments of officers of the U.S. national government” into “Hearing in the House, then removed”.
However, I do think this thread puts rest to anyone saying “Everyone knows what Impeachment means”.
I think that 99% of the time when someone says “Trump should be impeached!” they are talking about the entire process, a hearing in the House and a trial in the Senate leading to removal from office.
However, when someone says Clinton was impeached most people know what that means too.
Thinking impeachment means removal from office because people use it as shorthand for the entire process isn’t correct.
Me too.
I am astonished to see this much ignorance on TSD.
Of course it’s correct. Words have multiple meanings.
If someone says, “Clinton was impeached,” they mean that he faced formal charges.
If someone says, “Impeach Trump,” they almost certainly mean that they want him removed from office by Congress.
That’s how language works.
I think most of the people calling for impeachment of trump do mean " removed from office," but not necessarily out of confusion about the word’s meaning. Because they feel he is GUILTY and moreover, the only way he would get impeached in this political climate would likely be because the evidence is overwhelming, proving his guilt.