Section 17 of Article IV of the Virginia constitution provides that for “offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance Ralph Northam
Virginia Probably Can’t Impeach Governor Ralph Northam; It Applies Only To Acts Once in Office, But There’s An Alternative
Craig from Richmond, Virginia`, United States [ CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons WASHINGTON, D. C. (February 4,2019) – Now that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has refused to resign over blackface incidents, some are suggesting impeachment, but that would appear to be contrary to the clear language of the State’s constitution, as well as to national precedent, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who published a similar legal analysis regarding impeaching President Trump.
Q4 hedge fund letters, conference, scoops etc
Section 17 of Article IV of the Virginia constitution provides that for “offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor [the governor or several other officials] may be impeached by the House of Delegates.”
But several phrases in this standard make it clear that it applies only to actions or inactions during a governor’s term of office, and in any event would not apply to whatever occurred while Ralph Northam was a student, says Banzhaf. For example, the constitutional standard for impeachment begins with the phrase “offending against the Commonwealth by. . .”
This implies that the acts of Ralph Northam in question must have occurred while the person was a governmental official, since it hard to see how a private citizen – much less a medical student and his yearbook – could offend against the state of Virginia.
In other words, it appears that the phrase “offending against the Commonwealth by . .” applies to all of the following terms, including ” corruption,” “high crimes . .,” etc. Indeed, the very next phrase – “malfeasance in office” – supports that analysis, and also limits the standard for impeachment to acts done “in office.”
Moreover, in determining the meaning of words in a statute, courts rely upon a maxim of construction which says that, where there is a list of items, each and every one should usually be construed to be similar to the others, and not clearly different, unless such intent is made plain from the choice of words. So the words “in office” probably should apply to the other impeachment standards as well.
This construction – that all of the standards for impeachment apply only to actions taken while in office – is strengthened and repeated in another standard: “neglect of duty.”
Regardless of how strongly one may feel about what Ralph Northam is alleged to have done, he was clearly under no legal “duty” to refrain from this activity, so it cannot constitute a neglect of a non-duty.
Publishing a picture which is racist and offense to African Americans – especially only in a limited circulation yearbook – is not a crime, nor even a breach of any civil duty, any more than would be actually appearing in blackface itself.
