The question was asked for two local citizens to discuss the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. Here is the article in favor.

One political faction of the United States House of Representatives, who were elected by the people, have, with determination, introduced an Inquiry for Impeachment of our president, Donald Trump, who was elected by a majority of the 538 electors in the Electoral College, without receiving a majority of the popular vote.

This, of course, is an under force driving the more liberal minds in the present political mix of the House of Representatives, to hold our president to a higher accountability, in an attempt to bring forward Articles of Impeachment.

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not well defined in the Constitution. The terms “high crimes and misdemeanors,” in their most common sense, encompasses a large field of actions, and finds home in the minds of those whose sense of political morality, or sense of common decency has been breached.

An internet search to find out just what “high crimes and misdemeanors,” might possibly mean, the following came to light; “This term is broad enough to cover all criminal misconduct of the president, — all acts of commission or omission forbidden by the Constitution and the laws.”

The word “misdemeanor,” can be naturally attached to yet a broader significance, “which would embrace personal character and behavior as well as the proprieties of official conduct.” One such reading suggests: “The authors of the Constitution, in an attempt to establish a permanent national government, to insure purity and dignity, to promote and protect the confidence of its own people, as well as, the respect of foreign powers, held that civil officers, and most especially the highest of all, the head of the people, should be answerable for personal demeanor.”

Thusly, Articles of Impeachment were written into the Constitution. Is there any just reason why this idea should be restricted, or distracted, in consideration of our present situation? An inquiry for Impeachment is to discover evidence of this to support a vote on an Article of Impeachment to be sent to the Senate. Introducing an Inquiry of Impeachment in the House of Representatives, while a legal protective provision of the Constitution, is not without political implications.

The House is made up of individuals holding a wide spectrum of political philosophies. Part of this political mix promotes both an eager willingness to move toward the impeachment process by the more liberal minds in the House, as well as a reluctance of some with a liberal persuasion. A reluctance tempered by what is now the ensuing negativity in the national discourse and conversation; also a reluctance anticipating political fallout that will play out in upcoming elections.

This political mix is further complicated by the opposition on the right side of the aisle in the House, who, even the most moderate, seem to have a hypnotic, unquestioning support of the President’s egregious behavior that has led to the Inquiry of Impeachment; a behavior that runs contrary to the Constitutional standards for the office of president. To recount them all, those misdemeanors of conduct, here in this space serves little to support the argument in favor of the Inquiry to Impeach. The basis for impeachment were summed up in the very conservative, President John Adams quote:

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”

These Articles of Impeachment were not to inflict personal punishment for criminal behavior, or malfeasance of office, but meant to be a remedy to protect and uphold the Constitution, the very framework for proper governance in our nation. Democracy is a delicate form of governance. Our Democracy’s delicacy is strengthened by the diversity of its population, a diversity growing in economic and political influence in national politics. Our Democracy is weakened by an unbridled support for individual freedom. A freedom that is manifested by some in grasping for political power, and the continuance thereof. A power premised on personal gain, not service and accommodation to the people, the diverse population. The writers of the Constitution recognized this and put in a process to remedy its occurrence.

I think that time of remedy is upon us now.

Jerry Rigdon, sometimes artist, onetime community activist, inventor, is retired from a successful window cleaning company and presently operates Companion Tools Co., a window cleaning tool manufacture and distribution business. Rigdon is a former Mayor of Burlington and is also a retired Methodist Pastor. He is a member The Leopold Heritage Group, an organization formed to celebrate Aldo Leopold’s Iowa roots and advance Leopold’s conservation philosophy and promote Leopold’s Land Ethic, as well as serving on the BOD of the Leopold Landscape Alliance. He also is an amateur local historian.