If the constitution says a subject is impeachable if he is guilty of
"high crimes and misdemeanors, does guilt of a high crime, need to be
accompanied by a misdemeanor to compleate the requirement?  Or could
it mean that a mear misdemeanor would qualify?

Your answer is at  http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitutionquotes.html

The answer, which I will not "answer" because lochness got it first,
is that the word misdemeanor then is not the word misdemeanor now. But
"high crimes and misdemeanors" was at the end of a list of other
crimes to be impeached for, so it's definitely more of a "or" than an
"and", or to use your terms, just a misdemeanor would qualify. But
it's not a misdemeanor as we know them today, e.g. jaywalking.

Re:Impeachability 
In response to Lochness, Esq.

I must hasten to give, your due, of credit for your clever use of the
power of "contex-conditioning" (I just made up that phrase)me out of a
grammer and or logic mode, and into a "think of the big picture" mode.
Or a poetic-license mode.  How you did that you ask?  By padding your
response with interesting quasi related facts.

Let me address the word "interprit".  If we must rely on such a
troublesome word for the meaning of the constitution, then we should
at least decide, which meaning to employ. Does the Supreem Court rely
on the "render into another language" meaning or are they using the
"assign a meaning to" as Daniel used in his dream-meaning renditions? 
One meaning is subjective...

If I read you correctly, is "the language of the English Comon Law" a
synonym for Street Language that was not subject to the rules of
grammar?  In other words, are you saying that, back then, the English
incorporated into law, expressions that could not prove out
gramatically nor logically, but were acceptable corruptions?  Maybe in
the same way that the whole country used the word MORITORIUM to mean
quitting the Vietnam War.

Ok let's treat of the word and expression in question. If you are
saying that MISDEMEANOR then, had the same weight as "high crimes"
then it would have been redundant and even more confusing if the word
"and" were replaced by "or" as cjs2u-ga suggests.

If the "frainers" used Old English or language that now has the
opposite meaning, then lets admit it and amend it, not attempt to
devine artistic meaning from what is supposed to be a paragon of
logic.  There is a diference between a "living document" and a
frenetic document.

All professions use "terms of art" - words that have special meaning
within the profession that may have a different meaning (or no meaning
at all) outside of the profession. The law is certainly no exception.

So, no, a reference to the common law meaning of "misdemeanors" does
not reference how the term was understood by the people at the time
the Constitution was drafted. It refers to the maning of
"misdemeanors" as a legal term of art.

The change in the popular meaning of words or conceptions does not, of
itself, justify amending the constitution to "keep up with the times".
That would probably create more confusion than it resolved. Besides,
one of the reasons the Constitution has worked over 200 years is that
it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Had the Constitution been
redefined every decade, so that its terms accorded 100% with original
intent in clear modern language, Congress would have been deprived of
the capacity to perform some of the actions which have been made
necessary by the progress of science and technology.

Dear Mr. Expert Law

I applaud the cogency of your rendition.  It is reminicent of the
"Big-Bang" argument, wherein scientist establish a definition of
science, that distinguishes between religon and science; then are
"fried" by their own definition, in that, if a process cannot be
repeated, it is not science but religon.

Back to the question: was it "jabberwocky" or was it english.  Was the
constitution a document to be understood, or devined.  Was it
"speaking in toungs" to be subject to private interpritations, could a
day have ment a thousand years as in the bible, or was the
constitution created to meet the measure of the "science" of the
language of imperical man?

My argument is not that we have grown out of the meaning, as much as
it is that it had no logical meaning then, as I illustrated.  But you
seem to be saying that the phrase did not even have to make sence,
because of your "word of art" contention.

Even in the stone-age, before language developed, the sounds and
utterances that eventually evolved into language, had some resemblance
or relavant association to the resulting mutual understanding of a
given word. By the time the fraimers got to work on the document in
question, we already had the benefit of word roots and stems etc. to
relie on.  Hence, even if the fraimers purposely introduced "words of
art, with no meaning at all", in an era of plain-english contracts, it
is time to fix it.  Words of art should be relegated to poetry and
songs.

You seem to say that the fraimers wilful use of "meaningless" phrases
serves to provide something for the congress to do, but in the same
breath you believe that they would not have time to do other important
things if they would be engaged in the maintenance of this foundation
document.

You seem to be admitting that meny practices and professions employ
these meaningless nuggets.  Thank you, thank you very much for
confirming my heretofore nebulus suspicion that word-smiths who
created the same word with two opposite meanings, were high on
something.  I am affraid tho that I must temporarily withhold the next
carload of thanks until you conclude that fields where a child
rapist/murderer could be set free because of a technicality, or an
inocent pearson could fry, we cannot afford to allow words without
meaning to exist.  We should not speak in toungs, in LAW, that should
be left for religon. If it is not now an exception, then law should be
the only exception.  If I may mis-Quote an earstwile popular song:
"it's only words, and words are all I have, to take your life away".

After-thought: If POTUS Bill baffeled over "is", should we be content
to allow a future POTUS, to have a field-day with words that you admit
has no meaning?