Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
There are compelling arguments for why "misdemeanor" should be regarded as being construed more broadly in this context than it is in more familiar legal contexts. It doesn't appear to be a particularly radical view that a president can be impeached for conduct that doesn't rise to the level of a crime but that nevertheless shows him to be unfit for his high office, eg. failing to uphold the constitution, or subverting it outright:
It's definitely open to argument, and it's not strictly defined. I remember the Democrats were arguing pretty hard back in the Clinton era that "misdemeanor" was relative to "high crimes", and that the "high" modifier applied to both, so impeachment could only happen for very serious offenses. At the same time, the Republicans were arguing just what you said - that "misdemeanor" just means any lesser offense. I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that failing to uphold the Constitution isn't valid grounds for impeachment - it's the supreme law of the land, easily argued as treason (explicitly a reason for impeachment), breaking the Presidential oath, and most will agree that it counts as a high crime too.

The Constitution provides another method to remove a president who is unfit and gives that to the Executive branch (specifically the Vice President), so that's a solid argument that merely being "unfit for office" isn't good enough for an impeachment. An argument, not a conclusion.

When Congress is allowed to impeach is certainly not well defined, but there's a reason that all serious attempts at Presidential impeachment have involved actual crimes. Congress gets a lot of leverage from all the wriggle room in that phrase, but if they push it too far it'll give the Supreme Court the power to strictly define it, and that's very likely going to end with a loss of utility for Congress. I don't think we'll ever see a Presidential impeachment that doesn't involve a crime in spite of the legal possibility existing.