Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Articles of Impeachment

Read a random definition: warrantia custodiae

A quick definition of Articles of Impeachment:

Articles of Impeachment are a written list of reasons why someone in a powerful position, like a government official, might be removed from their job. It's like a big list of things they did wrong. The list has to be specific enough so the person being accused can defend themselves. The list can be added to at any time during the process. When the list is finished, the people in charge of making the decision will debate and vote on whether or not to remove the person from their job.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Articles of Impeachment are a written statement of charges used to remove an individual from office. They are like an indictment in a criminal case, but they do not have to follow the same strict format.

For example, if a government official is accused of breaking the law or violating their duties, the House Judiciary Committee may investigate and find reasons for impeachment. They will then write up the specific allegations in the Articles of Impeachment and present them to the full House of Representatives. The House will debate the allegations and vote on each one.

The Articles of Impeachment must be specific enough to allow the accused to defend themselves, but they can be general in nature. Additional articles of impeachment can be added at any time during the impeachment process.

Overall, the Articles of Impeachment are a formal way for the government to hold officials accountable for their actions and remove them from office if necessary.

Article III | Articles of Incorporation

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.