Question: What part of the constitution is the basis for the implied powers of the US legislature having the power to remove a justice of the court of criminal appeals?

Implied powers, in the United States, are powers authorized by the Constitution that, while not stated, seem implied by powers that are expressly stated. Hamilton noted that the ``general welfare clause ''and the`` necessary and proper clause'' gave elasticity to the Constitution. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed the bank bill into law. <SEP> The term`` good behavior'' is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire. The Constitution provides that justices ``shall hold their offices during good behavior ''(unless appointed during a Senate recess). Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805). Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign. <SEP> in 2006, a toxic waste spill off the coast of côte d'ivoire, from a european ship, prompted the commission to look into legislation against toxic waste. environment commissioner stavros dimas stated that "such highly toxic waste should never have left the european union". with countries such as spain not even having a crime against shipping toxic waste, franco frattini, the justice, freedom and security commissioner, proposed with dimas to create criminal sentences for "ecological crimes". the competence for the union to do this was contested in 2005 at the court of justice resulting in a victory for the commission. that ruling set a precedent that the commission, on a supranational basis, may legislate in criminal law – something never done before. so far, the only other proposal has been the draft intellectual property rights directive. motions were tabled in the european parliament against that legislation on the basis that criminal law should not be an eu competence, but was rejected at vote. however, in october 2007, the court of justice ruled that the commission could not propose what the criminal sanctions could be, only that there must be some. <SEP> the court of appeal of the high court of hong kong is the second most senior court in the hong kong legal system. it deals with appeals on all civil and criminal cases from the court of first instance and the district court. it is one of two courts that makes up the high court of hong kong (which was formerly known as the supreme court of hong kong). sometimes criminal appeals from magistrates' courts with general public importance are also dealt with in the court of appeal, either by referral by a single judge from the court of first instance, or upon granting of leave on application for review by the secretary for justice. <SEP> As with the former Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, appeals from many fields of law are likely to be selected for hearing, including commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Supreme Court also hears some criminal appeals, but not from Scotland, as there is no general right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's highest criminal court, other than with respect to devolution issues. The Supreme Court's focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public importance.