Posted on 08/08/2014 7:18:19 AM PDT by Steve Schulin
August 3, 2014 (conservativeprofiles.com) -- Two parts of Jonathan Turley's op ed in today's Washington Post illustrate how ingrained the concept of judicial supremacy has become. Here are the quotes:
* "... Congress’s exclusive power to impeach does not license it to abuse that power, any more than the Supreme Court’s final say on laws gives it license to deliver arbitrary rulings. The framers carefully defined the grounds for impeachment as 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' — language with British legal precedent. They clearly did not want removal of the president subject to congressional whim. Indeed, they rejected the addition of 'maladministration' after James Madison cautioned that 'so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.'”
* "Obama is as likely to be impeached as he is to be installed as the next pontiff. And I say that as someone who has testified in Congress that this president has violated federal laws, unconstitutionally appointed various executive-branch officers and improperly transferred money. Nevertheless, many of these disputes have divided judges on the merits. Presidents are allowed to challenge Congress in such conflicts without being subject to impeachment. Where they cross the line is when they ignore final judicial rulings in acts of contempt of both courts and Congress. Obama has not done that."
The first quote includes assertion that the Supreme Court has "final say" on laws. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court such a role, so why does Prof. Turley say this? In the famous Marbury v. Madison opinion, the principle of judicial review by the Supreme Court was linked to the same oath that every official swears: to support and defend the Constitution. All officials have that duty, not just the Supreme Court. If another official concludes that the Supreme Court is off on an unconstitutional course in a particular matter, that offical is obligated to support and defend the Constitution. There is no obligation to support and defend the Supreme Court's opinion. It is kind of ironic that the claim (that the Supreme Court has "final say" on laws) is made in an op ed titled "5 Myths About Impeachment" -- because the notion of judicial supremacy shares many qualities of myths.
The second quote asserts that in order for a presidential action to be one of the high crimes and misdemeanors, it must involve ignoring final judicial rulings. This view piles yet another unconstitutional perspective on top of the first. If I were a member of the U.S. House, I probably would have voted to impeach Obama early on for the high crime of failing to uphold his own oath to support and defend the Constitution. When people asked the reasonable question of whether Obama was qualified to serve as President, he acted like it was a personal matter rather than a constitutional one. That the Supreme Court refused to accept any cases on the matter in no way would preclude me from identifying the high crime of failing to uphold the oath of office.
Ref: Jonathan Turley, "5 Myths About Impeachment", The Washington Post, August 3, 2014, p. B3
The term “High Crimes” and misdemeanors is bandied about without most people understanding what “High Crimes” means. It refers to crimes, all crimes, committed by people in HIGH PLACES in government. It is not a level of crime but a level of the person committing the crime. Basically, any crime committed by the President is a HIGH CRIME!
I imagine the courts would decline to intervene in impeachment on the grounds that it is a political question. Impeachment, conviction and removal from office must necessarily be expeditious and final. You can’t have the matter wind through the courts while the office remains vacant or the replacement can’t act because at some later date the courts will reverse the conviction.
Actually, when the Founders wrote that “high crimes” had the meaning of abuse of office — including actions which do not run afoul of any particular statute or established principle of the Common Law, but are abuse of office nonetheless. Violation of the Presidential oath of office is the basic form of a ‘high crime’ committed by the President, and on a plain reading of the meaning of the oath and the Constitution, Obama has committed multiple high crimes.
Impeachment proceedings are clear and is a tool particular to the Legislative branch. Anybody telling us otherwise is working on some sort of agenda.
The term high crimes and misdemeanors is not subject to Judicial review, otherwise the judicial branch could rule that fellow judges cannot be impeached.
In this case, the House is the prosecutor and the Senate is the Jury and the Chief Justice is the procedural judge.
“The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.”
— From wiki.
High crimes are any criminal activity. Misdemeanors are anything the house feels like that extra-judiciously thwarts the will of the Legislature.
Think malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Would all be impeachable offenses.
“The second quote asserts that in order for a presidential action to be one of the high crimes and misdemeanors, it must involve ignoring final judicial rulings”
Really?
I note none of the previously impeached relied on SCOTUS “GIGIVING” Congress the imprimatur for such action.
No, that power is found in the Constitution.
You have gone and done it now, the lawyer types will be all over you. Few here know that Congress can and has passed laws that are not subject to judicial Review. If Freepers don't grasp that,what chance is there for LIV's to get it?
Turley may have been fishing for that gig, but clearly in this article he presents a lot of lawyerly B$ designed to discourage impeachment, while cautioning congress to defend their authority against a tyrannical president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.