Replies

I'll help you out... e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. ” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.

It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

It is not unconstitutional on its face, but like a lot of other laws, it could be applied unconstitutionally. In this case, an attempt to use it to remove a sitting President from office would be unconstitutional. The Constitutionally correct legal remedy for treason by the President would be three steps: 1) The House would impeach the President for treason, 2) the Senate would vote to convict him by a 2/3 majority, and then 3) the now former President could then (and only then) be prosecuted criminally for treason under 18 U.S.C. Section 2381.

The idea that you could just bypass the entire Constitutionally-mandated impeachment procedure simply by some lowly federal prosecutor bringing charges against a sitting President, and then having him convicted in any one of nearly 700 federal district courts around the country, is absolutely absurd.

Just think how easy it would be for a single prosecutor in D.C. to convict a conservative Republican President of treason (they might have tried it against Trump if it was possible) and then just give him the boot. There isn't any hint anywhere in the Constitution that is permitted, nor is there anything in Supreme Court caselaw suggesting that a criminal conviction of any kind results in the removal of a President. You want him out? Impeach him, then prosecute him criminally.

The argument for removing members of Congress for not doing an investigation is even worse. The doctrine of legislative immunity is incredibly well-established, and the failure of a legislature to do something you think they should have done isn't actionable against them as individuals no matter what.

Apart from that, the whole premise of the argument is absurd. Congress has no constitutional obligation to investigate anything unless Congress determines it is necessary. Nothing in the Constitution gave the courts the power to make that determination. What the Constitution did do is leave it up to the states to choose their own electors. So if you want to go after how those states chose their electors, the proper remedy is to sue the states.