?Read me?College Board?CB?4?SAT? ?CB?Khan Academy? ?2015? ?essay?SAT?,? ? ? ?3?SAT?diagnostic test? ? ? ?SAT?CB? ?SAT? ? ?1? ? ? ?AAA Studio ? ?1.?released ?coming soon?2-3?pending ? ?2? 2.?3?(level2 level3 level4)? 3.0?CB?OG? 4.1.11.4?,1.51.7?SAT? ?1.8?AAA Studio ? 5.2.12.3?2.5? ? 6.3?AAA Studio ?SAT? 7.4?AAA Studio ?SAT? 8.5?OG 4?1?PSAT ? ? 9.?AAA Studio? ? www.khanacademy.org? ?Parts 2? two area scores; 3? three test scores (plus additional Essay scores); 2?7? two cross-test scores; and seven subscores. REDESIGNED SAT: INSIGHT SCORES ? ? Composite Score 4001600 ? Sections (200800)? Evidence-Based Reading and Writing? Math? Test (1040)? Reading? writing it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.“Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?” “ The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men.”* And thats what were talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesnt say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judgethe framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges . . . the same person.We know the nature of impeachment. Weve been talking about it a while now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the executive if he engages in excesses. “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”* The framers confided in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive. The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors, and discounted and opposed the term “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other.” . . . The North Carolina ratification convention: “No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.” “Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. “We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”* I do not mean political parties in that sense. The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and the effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.” Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons