Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump

2021-01-24

[Powerline] Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of "the President." Trump is no longer "the President." Roberts’s presence is therefore not called for.

Trump is of course a private citizen at this point. The constitutional text does not appear to contemplate the impeachment or trial of a private citizen, although such impeachments took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth. Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.

Judge Luttig argues: "Once Trump's term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him‐even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment." The Constitution's impeachment clauses presuppose that impeachment and removal of a president happen while in office.

As an example, Judge Luttig cites Article II, Section 4: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

He also cites Article I, Section 3, which reads in part: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

Note that "removal" accompanies "disqualification." If a private citizen can no longer be removed, can he simply be disqualified? Perhaps, but disqualification is conjoined with removal.

Judge Luttig concedes that some scholars argue that Congress can impeach a former president from two instances in which early Congresses impeached "civil officials" after they had resigned their public offices ‐ the impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. He further concedes that these cases "provide some backing for the argument that Congress can conclude that it has the power under the Constitution to impeach a former president." Please note that the case of William Blount ‐ summarized here by the Senate ‐ is ambiguous at best in relevant respects. (Alan Dershowitz rightly ignores it in his column quoted below.)

Posted by:Frank G

#7 Ref #5: And of course he can - after conviction - be barred from public office. So a conviction DOES matter.

I doubt he desires another foray into public office. It's a simple 'pile on' to divert attention from an ailing, sundowner plagued plugs and his perverted, thieving son. Somewhere about 74,000,000 Americans know precisely what took place. There really is no spoofing these voters.

Posted by: Besoeker 2021-01-24 22:18

#6 BZZZZT. Wrong. Again? Constitutional Lessons™ by furriners?

Posted by: Frank G 2021-01-24 21:54

#5 Raj, it's quite simple.
The President is impeached by a majority vote of the House.
He must then be convicted by the Senate.
If he is, the penalty is removal from office.

Can you be removed from office if you've already left office?
Well removal from office comes with consequences. A President removed from office (even if removed after he left) loses privileges (pension etc.).

And of course he can - after conviction - be barred from public office. So a conviction DOES matter.

Posted by: European Conservative 2021-01-24 19:17

#4 Your thinking the 'Republicans' are on Trump's side. With few exceptions the've always hated him - almost as much as the Democrats. Remember the '16 election? Trump ran against the Democrats, and the leadershit (spelled correctly) of his own party. Now that he's out of office (and won't be re-elected in 20) they will turn on him like a pack of democrats.
It's not Republicans verses Democrats - they are just different cheeks of the same ass - its really the American Nobility (i.e. Elites) verses Americans.

Posted by: CrazyFool 2021-01-24 18:55

#3 Its an attempt by the Hate-o-crats to end run the Constitution and effectively make a Bill of Attainder.

Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.”

The ban reinforces the separation of powers by forbidding the legislative branch of government from engaging in judicial or executive acts.

This is EXACTLY what the Congress is attempting to do: Engage in a Judicial Act, outside of its Constitutional boundaries. Trump is no longer a sitting federal official and is therefore unable to be impeached. That means Congress cannot do anything more to him, legally speaking.

Why havent the GOP opened this up and sued the House for unconsitutional violation of the impeachment clause and the violation of Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.

Pretty clear cut - they should chop this off at its knees.

Posted by: Deadeye Jaiting7534 2021-01-24 18:19

#2 And that Georgia congresswoman who want to impeach Xiden after a few hours as president doesn't any sense, either.

Posted by: Clem 2021-01-24 11:33

#1 ...even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but that doesn't square with this:

Article II, Section 4: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

In other words, it doesn't matter if the House approves of articles of impeachment - they need to hold the vote and actually impeach him. Since that didn't happen, everything else is moot and another obvious scumbag move by the Democrats to harass Trump well after he's out the door.

Posted by: Raj 2021-01-24 11:09

00:00