impeach

　 　 　

WordNet

1. charge (a public official) with an offense or misdemeanor committed while in office; "The President was impeached"
2. challenge the honesty or veracity of; "the lawyers tried to impeach the credibility of the witnesses"
3. a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office
4. beyond doubt or reproach; "an unimpeachable source"
5. the state of being liable to impeachment (同)indictability

PrepTutorEJDIC

1. 《おもに米》(不法行為のために)〈載判官・公務員〉‘を'弾劾(だんがい)する;(…のかどで)〈人〉‘を'非難する《+『名』+『for』(『of, with』)+『名』(do『ing』)》 / 《文》…‘を'疑う,問いただす
2. 非難;告訴;告発;《おもに米》(裁判官・公務員を)弾劾(だんがい)すること
3. 非難(疑問)の余地がない,申し分のない
4. 申し分なく,疑わしくなく

Wikipedia preview

出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2013/01/10 23:59:43」(JST)

wiki en

[Wiki en表示]

This article is about a step in the removal of a public official. For challenging a witness in a legal proceeding, see witness impeachment.

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

History

The word "impeachment" derives from Latin roots expressing the idea of becoming caught or entrapped, and has analogues in the modern French verb empêcher (to prevent) and the modern English impede. Medieval popular etymology also associated it (wrongly) with derivations from the Latin impetere (to attack). (In its more frequent and more technical usage, impeachment of a person in the role of a witness is the act of challenging the honesty or credibility of that person.)

The process should not be confused with a recall election. A recall election is usually initiated by voters and can be based on "political charges", for example mismanagement, whereas impeachment is initiated by a constitutional body (usually a legislative body) and is usually, but not always, based on an indictable offense. The process of removing the official is also different.

Impeachment was first used in the British political system. Specifically, the process was first used by the English "Good Parliament" against Baron Latimer in the second half of the 14th century. Following the British example, the constitutions of Virginia (1776), Massachusetts (1780), Haiti (3229) and Tajikistan (1842) and other states thereafter adopted the impeachment mechanism; however, they restricted the punishment to removal of the official from office. In private organizations, a motion to impeach can be used to prefer charges.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, at least in theory, all persons, whether peers or commoners, may be prosecuted and tried by the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for any crimes whatsoever. The first recorded impeachment is that of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer during the Good Parliament of 1376. The last was that of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville in 1806.

Procedure

In the United Kingdom, it is the House of Commons that holds the power of initiating an impeachment. Any member may make accusations of any crime. The member must support the charges with evidence and move for impeachment. If the Commons carries the motion, the mover receives orders to go to the bar at the House of Lords and to impeach the accused "in the name of the House of Commons, and all the commons of the United Kingdom."

The mover must tell the Lords that the House of Commons will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against the accused, and make good the same. The Commons then usually selects a committee to draw up the charges and create an "Article of Impeachment" for each. (In the case of Warren Hastings, however, the drawing up of the articles preceded the formal impeachment.) Once the committee has delivered the articles to the Lords, replies go between the accused and the Commons via the Lords. If the Commons have impeached a peer, the Lords take custody of the accused, otherwise custody goes to Black Rod. The accused remains in custody unless the Lords allow bail. The Lords set a date for the trial while the Commons appoints managers, who act as prosecutors in the trial. The accused may defend by counsel.

The House of Lords hears the case. The procedure used to be that the Lord Chancellor presided (or the Lord High Steward if the defendant was a peer). However since the Lord Chancellor today is no longer a judge, it is not certain who would preside over an impeachment trial today. If Parliament is not in session, then the trial is conducted by a "Court of the Lord High Steward" instead of the House of Lords (even if the defendant is not a peer). The differences between this court and the House of Lords are that in the House all of the peers are judges of both law and fact, whereas in the Court the Lord High Steward is the sole judge of fact and the peers decide the facts only; and the bishops are not entitled to sit and vote in the Court.

The hearing resembles an ordinary trial: both sides may call witnesses and present evidence. At the end of the hearing the lords vote on the verdict, which is decided by a simple majority, one charge at a time. Upon being called, a lord must rise and declare "guilty, upon my honour" or "not guilty, upon my honour". After voting on all of the articles has taken place, and if the Lords find the defendant guilty, the Commons may move for judgment; the Lords may not declare the punishment until the Commons have so moved. The Lords may then decide whatever punishment they find fit, within the law. A royal pardon cannot excuse the defendant from trial, but a pardon may reprieve a convicted defendant. However, a pardon cannot override a decision to remove the defendant from the public office they hold.

History

Parliament has held the power of impeachment since mediæval times. Originally, the House of Lords held that impeachment could only apply to members of the peerage (nobles), as the nobility (the Lords) would try their own peers, while commoners ought to try their peers (other commoners) in a jury. However, in 1681, the Commons declared that they had the right to impeach whomsoever they pleased, and the Lords have respected this resolution.

After the reign of Edward IV, impeachment fell into disuse, the bill of attainder becoming the preferred form of dealing with undesirable subjects of the Crown. However, during the reign of James I and thereafter, impeachments became more popular, as they did not require the assent of the Crown, while bills of attainder did, thus allowing Parliament to resist royal attempts to dominate Parliament. The most recent cases of impeachment dealt with Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India between 1773 and 1786 (impeached in 1788; the Lords found him not guilty in 1795), and Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1806 (acquitted). The last attempted impeachment occurred in 1848, when David Urquhart accused Lord Palmerston of having signed a secret treaty with Imperial Russia and of receiving monies from the Tsar. Palmerston survived the vote in the Commons; the Lords did not hear the case.

Impeachment in modern politics

The procedure has, over time, become rarely used and some legal authorities (such as Halsbury's Laws of England) consider it to be probably obsolete. The principles of "responsible government" require that the Prime Minister and other executive officers answer to Parliament, rather than to the Sovereign. Thus the Commons can remove such an officer through a motion of no confidence without a long, drawn-out impeachment. However, it is argued by some that the remedy of impeachment remains as part of British constitutional law, and that legislation would be required to abolish it. Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for wrongdoing, as distinct from being a means of removing a minister, remains a valid reason for accepting that it continues to be available, at least in theory.

In April 1977 the Young Liberals' annual conference unanimously passed a motion to call on the Liberal leader (David Steel) to move for the impeachment of Ronald King Murray QC, the Lord Advocate. Mr. Steel did not call the motion but Murray (now Lord Murray, a former Senator of the College of Justice of Scotland) agrees that the Commons still have the right to initiate an impeachment motion. On 25 August 2004, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced his intention to move for the impeachment of Tony Blair for his role in involving Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In response Peter Hain, the Commons Leader, insisted that impeachment was obsolete, given modern government's responsibility to parliament. Ironically, Peter Hain had served as president of the Young Liberals when they called for the impeachment of Mr. Murray in 1977.

In 2006, General Sir Michael Rose revived the call for the impeachment of Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for leading the country into the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under allegedly false justification.

United States

Main article: Impeachment in the United States

The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presiding. The House managers are seated beside the quarter-circular tables on the left and the president's personal counsel on the right, much in the fashion of President Andrew Johnson's trial.

Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Unlike the British system, impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed. Impeachment with respect to political office should not be confused with witness impeachment.

Impeachable offenses

In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.^{[citation needed]} In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Four years later, Gerald Ford would become president when President Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment and conviction. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.^{[citation needed]}

Officials subject to impeachment

The central question regarding the Constitutional dispute about the impeachment of members of the legislature is whether members of Congress are officers of the United States. The Constitution grants the House the power to impeach "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." It has been suggested that members of Congress are not officers of the United States. Others, however, believe that members are civil officers and are subject to impeachment.^{[citation needed]}

The House of Representatives did impeach a senator once: Senator William Blount, in 1798. The Senate expelled Senator Blount and, after initially hearing his impeachment, dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction. Left unsettled was the question whether members of Congress were civil officers of the United States. The House has not impeached a Member of Congress since Blount. As each House has the authority to expel its own members without involving the other chamber, expulsion has been the method used for removing Members of Congress.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives, states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges preferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

Process

The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

History of Federal Impeachment Proceedings in the United States

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 64 times since 1789 (most recently against Judge Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana) with only the following 19 of these proceedings actually resulting in the House passing Articles of Impeachment:

• Two presidents:
  • Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, falling one vote short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 35-19 to remove him. The Tenure of Office Act would later be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in dicta.
  • Bill Clinton, Democrat, was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles. One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote) and an article which accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The Senate vote fell short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
• One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
• One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment.
• One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• Fourteen other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from Florida. Hastings's name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

Richard Nixon, Republican, was never impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned before the House could consider the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Pakistan

The country's ruling coalition said on August 7, 2008, that it would seek the impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf, alleging the U.S.-backed former general had "eroded the trust of the nation" and increasing pressure on him to resign. He resigned on 18 August 2008. Another kind of impeachment in Pakistan is known as the vote of less-confidence or vote of mis-understanding and has been practiced by provincial assemblies to weaken the national assembly.

Impeaching a president requires a two-thirds majority support of lawmakers in a joint session of both houses of Parliament.

Philippines

Main article: Impeachment in the Philippines

Impeachment in the Philippines follows procedures similar to the United States. Under Sections 2 and 3, Article XI, Constitution of the Philippines, the House of Representatives of the Philippines has the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment against the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, members of the Constitutional Commissions (Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit), and the Ombudsman. When a third of its membership has endorsed the impeachment articles, it is then transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines which tries and decide, as impeachment tribunal, the impeachment case.

A main difference from US proceedings however is that only 1/3 of House members are required to approve the motion to impeach the President (as opposed to a simple majority of those present and voting in their US counterpart). In the Senate, selected members of the House of Representatives act as the prosecutors and the Senators act as judges with the Senate President presiding over the proceedings (the Chief Justice jointly presides with the Senate President if the President is on trial). Like the United States, to convict the official in question requires that a minimum of 2/3 (i.e., 16 of 24 members) of all the Members of the Senate vote in favor of conviction. If an impeachment attempt is unsuccessful or the official is acquitted, no new cases can be filed against that impeachable official for at least one full year.

Impeachable offenses and officials

The 1987 Philippine Constitution says the grounds for impeachment include culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. These offenses are considered "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Philippine Constitution.

The President, Vice President, Supreme Court justices, and members of the Constitutional Commission and Ombudsman are all considered impeachable officials under the Constitution.

Impeachment proceedings and attempts

President Joseph Estrada was the first official impeached by the House in 2000, but the trial ended prematurely due to outrage over a vote to open an envelope where that motion was narrowly defeated by his allies. Estrada was deposed days later during the 2001 EDSA Revolution.

In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, impeachment complaints were filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, but none of the cases reached the required endorsement of 1/3 of the members for transmittal to, and trial by, the Senate.

In March 2011, the House of Representatives impeached Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, becoming the second person to be impeached. On April, Gutierrez resigned prior to the Senate's convening as an impeachment court.

In December 2011, in what was described as “blitzkrieg fashion,” 188 of the 285 members of the House of Representatives voted to transmit the 56-page Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

As of date, three officials had been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and two were not convicted. The latter, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, on May 29, 2012 has been convicted by the House of the Senate guilty under Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (of betraying public trust.), with 20-3 votes from the Senator Judges.

Republic of Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland formal impeachment only applies to the Irish president. Article 12 of the Irish Constitution provides that, unless judged to be "permanently incapacitated" by the Supreme Court, the president can only be removed from office by the houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) and only for the commission of "stated misbehaviour". Either house of the Oireachtas may impeach the president, but only by a resolution approved by a majority of at least two-thirds of its total number of members; and a house may not consider a proposal for impeachment unless requested to do so by at least thirty of its number.

Where one house impeaches the president, the remaining house either investigates the charge or commissions another body or committee to do so. The investigating house can remove the president if it decides, by at least a two-thirds majority of its members, both that they are guilty of the charge of which they stand accused, and that the charge is sufficiently serious as to warrant their removal. To date no impeachment of an Irish president has ever taken place. The president holds a largely ceremonial office, the dignity of which is considered important, so it is likely that a president would resign from office long before undergoing formal conviction or impeachment.

The Republic's Constitution and law also provide that only a joint resolution of both houses of the Oireachtas may remove a judge. Although often referred to as the 'impeachment' of a judge, this procedure does not technically involve impeachment.

Other jurisdictions

• Austria: The Austrian Federal President can be impeached by the Federal Assembly (Bundesversammlung) before the Constitutional Court. The constitution also provides for the recall of the president by a referendum. Neither of these courses has ever been taken, likely because the President is an unobtrusive and largely ceremonial figurehead who, having little power, is hardly in a position to abuse it.
• Brazil: The President of Federative Republic of Brazil may be impeached. This happened in December 30, 1992 to Fernando Collor de Mello, who was removed from the presidency and held ineligible for eight years, due to evidence of bribery and misappropriation. State governors and municipal mayors may also be impeached, though only the latter have actually been removed from office through this procedure.
• Bulgaria: The President of Bulgaria can be removed only for high treason or violation of the constitution. The process is started by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parliament to impeach the President, whereupon the Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty of the crime he is charged with. If he is found guilty, he is removed from power. No Bulgarian President has ever been impeached. The same procedure can be used to remove the Vice President of Bulgaria, which has also never happened.
• Croatia: President of Croatia Sabor starts the impeachment process with two-thirds majority in favor of impeachment and then Constitutional Court has to accept that with two-thirds majority of justices in favor of impeachment. This has never happened in the history of the Republic of Croatia.
• Czech Republic: President of the Czech Republic can be impeached only for an act of high treason (which is not specified in the Constitution of the Czech Republic itself). The process has to start Senate of the Czech Republic which only has the right to impeach resident, this passes case to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic which has to decide whether the President is guilty or not. If the Court decides that the President is guilty than the President loses his office and the ability to be elected President of the Czech Republic ever again. No Czech president has ever been impeached.
• Germany: The Federal President of Germany can be impeached both by the Bundestag and by the Bundesrat for willfully violating German law. Once the Bundestag or the Bundesrat impeaches the president, the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if this is the case, whether to remove him or her from office. No such case has yet occurred, not the least because the President's functions are mostly ceremonial and they seldom make controversial decisions. The Federal Constitutional Court also has the power to remove federal judges from office for willfully violating core principles of the federal constitution or a state constitution.
• India: The President of India can be impeached by the Parliament before the expiry of his term for violation of the Constitution. Other than impeachment, no other penalty can be given to the President for the violation of the Constitution. No Indian President has faced impeachment proceedings. Hence, the provisions for impeachment have never been tested.
• Iran: Member of Majlis representatives and the Leader can remove the President. In January 1980, Abolhassan Banisadr, then the president of Iran, was impeached by the Majlis representatives in June, 1981. The Assembly of Experts can impeach the Leader.
• Italy: The President of the Republic can be impeached through a majority vote of the Parliament in joint session only for high treason and for attempting to overthrow the Constitution. Then, he is tried by the Constitutional Court, integrated with sixteen citizens older than forty chosen by lot from a list compiled by the Parliament every nine years.
• Liechtenstein: The Prince can be disposed by the popular vote. Since 2003 the constitution provides for the recall of the Prince by a referendum.
• Norway: Members of government, representatives of the national assembly (Stortinget) and Supreme Court judges can be impeached for criminal offences tied to their duties and committed in office, according to the Constitution of 1814, §§ 86 and 87. The procedural rules were modelled on the US rules and are quite similar to them. Impeachment has been used eight times since 1814, last in 1927. Many argue that impeachment has fallen into desuetude.
• Romania: The President can be impeached by Parliament and is then suspended. A referendum then follows to determine whether the suspended President should be removed from office. President Traian Băsescu was impeached twice by the Parliament: in 2007 and more recently in July 2012. A referendum was held on May 19, 2007 and a large majority of the electorate voted against removing the president from office. For the most recent suspension a referendum was held on July 29, 2012.
• Russia: The President of Russia can be impeached if both the State Duma (which initiates the impeachment process through the formation of a special investigation committee) and the Federation Council of Russia vote by a two-thirds majority in favor of impeachment and, additionally, the Supreme Court finds the President guilty of treason or a similarly heavy crime against the nation and the Constitutional Court confirms that the constitutional procedure of the impeachment process was correctly observed. In 1995-1999, the Duma made several attempts to impeach then-President Boris Yeltsin, but they never had a sufficient amount of votes for the process to reach the Federation Council.
• Republic of China (Taiwan): In Taiwan (officially called the ROC) officials can be impeached by a two-thirds vote in the Legislative Yuan together with an absolute majority in a referendum.
• Venezuela: Any elected authority (including governors, vice-president and president) can be impeached after half the period for which the authority was elected. This provided that no less than 20% of the registered voters in the jurisdiction ask for the process to start and afterwards more or the same number of people that elected the authority, vote in favor of the removal of the latter. The president can also be removed from charge if the supreme court rules so, or in case of mental insanity or physical incapacity.

References

Further reading

• Gerhardt, Michael J. The federal impeachment process.

English Journal

• Optimizing interoperability between video-oculographic and electromyographic systems.

• Navallas J1, Ariz M, Villanueva A, San Agustín J, Cabeza R.
• Journal of rehabilitation research and development.J Rehabil Res Dev.2011;48(3):253-65.
• A new system is presented that enhances the interoperability between a video-oculographic (VOG) system for mouse movement control and an electromyographic (EMG) system for mouse click detection. The proposed VOG-EMG system combines gaze and muscle information to minimize the number of undesired clic
• PMID 21480100

• (13)C-(15)N correlation via unsymmetrical indirect covariance NMR: application to vinblastine.

• Martin GE1, Hilton BD, Blinov KA, Williams AJ.
• Journal of natural products.J Nat Prod.2007 Dec;70(12):1966-70. Epub 2007 Nov 29.
• Unsymmetrical indirect covariance processing methods allow the derivation of hyphenated 2D NMR data from the component 2D spectra, potentially circumventing the acquisition of the much lower sensitivity hyphenated 2D NMR experimental data. Calculation of HSQC-COSY and HSQC-NOESY spectra from GHSQC,
• PMID 18044844

• Application of unsymmetrical indirect covariance NMR methods to the computation of the (13)C <--> (15)N HSQC-IMPEACH and (13)C <--> (15)N HMBC-IMPEACH correlation spectra.

• Martin GE1, Hilton BD, Irish PA, Blinov KA, Williams AJ.
• Magnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC.Magn Reson Chem.2007 Oct;45(10):883-8.
• Utilization of long-range (1)H--(15)N heteronuclear chemical shift correlation has continually grown in importance since the first applications were reported in 1995. More recently, indirect covariance NMR methods have been introduced followed by the development of unsymmetrical indirect covariance
• PMID 17729230

• Utilizing unsymmetrical indirect covariance processing to define 15N- 13C connectivity networks.

• Martin GE1, Irish PA, Hilton BD, Blinov KA, Williams AJ.
• Magnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC.Magn Reson Chem.2007 Aug;45(8):624-7.
• There has been considerable interest over the past decade in the utilization of direct and long-range 1H- 15N heteronuclear shift correlation methods at natural abundance to facilitate the elucidation of small molecule structures. Recently, there has also been a high level of interest in the explora
• PMID 17563910

Japanese Journal

• P-43 黄金色藻Ochromonas danicaから得られるクロロスルフォリピッド類の立体化学(ポスター発表の部)

• 河原 哲平,沖野 龍文
• 天然有機化合物討論会講演要旨集 (50), 391-396, 2008-09-01
• … from HETLOC and J-IMPEACH-MBC spectrum. …
• NAID 110007066733

• P-25 海綿由来37員環マクロリドTheonezolide A〜Cの立体化学の解明(ポスター発表の部)

• 野沢 耕平,佐藤 昌昭,近藤 和彦,福士 江里,川端 潤,関口 光広,津田 正史,小林 淳一
• 天然有機化合物討論会講演要旨集 (48), 313-317, 2006-09-15
• … On the other hands, J(C,H) values were measured by HETLOC, J-resolved-HSQC, phase-sensitive HMBC, and J-impeach-HMBC spectra. …
• NAID 110006682673

• インドネシア憲法裁判(大学院法学研究科特別講義記録)

• Azhar
• 札幌学院法学 21(2), 689-706, 2005-03-30
• 1998年に採択された政治改革路線に基づき、1945年に発布されたインドネシア共和国憲法の一連の改正が行われ、1999年から2002年にかけて連続的に実施された。この政正による変更は、各種制度の性格と構造だけではなく、各種国家機関の相互関係の在り方にまで及んだ。さらに、この改正により、憲法第6章第16条に規定されていた最高審議会(the supreme Advisory Council)は廃止され …
• NAID 110004634621

• ハンセン病療養所の課題 : 新良田教室卒業生への聞き取り調査を手がかりに

• 上野 哲
• 医学哲学医学倫理 (22), 1-6, 2004-10-18
• … What I do not try to do here is to impeach someone. …
• NAID 110006952264

Related Links

• impeachの意味 - 英和辞書 - goo辞書

impeachとは。意味や和訳。[動](他)1 〈人を〉（特に国家に対する犯罪などについて）告発[告訴]する；((主に米))〈政治家・官僚などを〉（官職に関する不正で）弾劾[告発，告訴]する((of, with, for ...))impeach a governor for takin ...

• impeachの意味・用例｜英辞郎 on the WEB：アルク

impeach 【他動】 ～を弾劾する、告発する、起訴する・The war with Iraq could ... - アルクがお届けする進化するオンライン英和・和英辞書データベース。一般的な単語や連語から、イディオム、専門用語、スラングまで幅広く収録。

• Impeach Bush PAC

当社は、お客様にかわって、ヤフーオークションや楽天オークションへの出品代行を承っております。ヤフオクや楽オクをやりたいけれど不安やめんどうなことで迷っておられましたら、是非当社におまかせください。

Related Pictures