I try to write articles that will be relevant for years. I had not intended to write about impeachment 2.0 because it will be over in approximately a week to 10 days after today, 2/3/21. I changed my mind because it may have lasting importance in the future.
In December of 2019, the House voted to impeach President Trump citing two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Neither met the standard for impeachment as stated in Article 2 Section 4 of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Actually, neither of these is even a crime!
Impeachment 2.0 is even worse. 1st, common sense asks how do you remove a person from office when he no longer holds that office? 2nd, Article 2 Section 4, in referring to impeachment, states “The President shall be removed…” Not former President. “President.” The Senate, under the “separation of powers” (Articles 1, 2 & 3), has no jurisdiction over a private citizen.
3rd, Article 1 Section 9. This declares any Bill of Attainder illegal. This is a trial by the Legislature of a private citizen where it is the prosecutor, judge, and jury. That was English law. Our founders didn’t want to repeat that mistake. Article 3 endows only the Judiciary with such powers.
4th, the former President’s civil rights were violated by the House. In fact, they set a one day record. No witnesses or evidence was presented. No defense lawyers were present: free speech, due process, questionable criteria for impeachment, no discovery, 25th Amendment was violated (Nancy threatened Pence to invoke it or else), and the illegal Bill of Attainder.
5th, the Constitution provides for the Chief Justice to preside. Roberts has refused. Another violation of the process. He apparently believes that the Constitution does not permit a former President to be a target of impeachment. Senator Leahy, president pro tempore, will preside. He has already publicly found Trump guilty. He gets a vote and will be the judge. Perfect! Bottom line, this trial cannot be legal. It clearly violates the policy and intent of the Constitution. The Constitution cannot permit what it explicitly forbids!
Since 1776, there have been 100s of speeches in DC. Some were vengeful, powerful, vindictive, vile, even hateful. Abortionists, anti-abortionists, KKK, Nazis, Civil Rights leaders, union leaders, suffragettes whose purpose was to arouse. Common phrases were “march on the capitol,” “confront your Senators,” “make your voices heard.” All powerful. All protected (Brandenburg v Ohio, Supreme Court. The vote was 9-0).
Now, if Trump had said storm the capitol, break windows, trespass, invade the floor of the Senate, kill policemen…not protected and this article would be a lot different. You can hate his speech, find it in bad taste, offensive. These are all good reasons to not vote for him again, not to impeach him.
Trump will be acquitted. My concern is the precedent it sets. If Presidents can be impeached retroactively, I have a list: Buchanan, Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Harding, Truman, Clinton, Obama. All were guilty of questionable unconstitutional acts. I would also include Hillary, Booker, Schumer, Schiff, and Waters.
Lastly, I have a suggestion for unity Joe. This a moment in time where he can take on the left wing of his party. Be a statesman, a President for all. “This impeachment does not serve the country. The Senate cannot do any other business during the trial. I am now the President. We’ve had enough of Trump. We need to move on, forward. We have enough work to do for the good of all without focusing on a former President.”
To sum up, the Senate is about to hold a trial on someone over whom they have no jurisdiction, is blatantly unconstitutional, where the outcome is known, and the only excuse is to make sure he is ineligible to run again. Hmmm, actually that does sound like Congress.
“If there’s anything you absolutely hate…it must be unconstitutional. Or if there’s anything you absolutely have to have, it must be required by the Constitution. This is utterly mindless.” -Antonin Scalia
