Dershowitz: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment

The Hill ^ | 05/31/19 04:08 PM EDT | Alan Dershowitz

[gleeaikin]

ping

[savedbygrace]

You are correct. I was wrong.

Thank you for the correction.

[Jim Noble]

The biggest falsehood being promulgated upon the people at this time is that impeachment is a political activity. In fact it is intended to be a legal activity where where illegal activities of elected and appointed officials are address

Actually, the origination of "impeachment" was an attempt by Parliament to limit the absolute powers of the King without interfering with him personally.

Accusing one of his ministers (back then, the King chose his own ministers and advisors) of a "high misdemeanor" put the King in a box because the minister was NOT free from judgement while the King, theoretically, was - but if the King kept on an "impeached" servant, he would be (indirectly) interfering with Parliament's prerogatives.

When the Founders adopted the deliberately vague "high crimes and misdemeanors", they were incorporating the then-existing English use of the term - so Congress is most certainly allowed to define "high misdemeanors" without reference to the criminal law.

[Nuc 1.1]

Impeachment should be a for cause remedy not political sniping, and I believe the founders would agree. Regardless, Congress will do whatever it pleases. Look at what the Senate attempted with the Iran deal. I believe JFK once wrote “When peaceful change becomes impossible violent change becomes inevitable.” or words to that effect. We as a nation are certainly heading in that direction. Gotta go, at work.

[Jim W N]

Nice opinion as far as it goes, but you fail to support your opinion with constitutionally-based rationale that reads and applies the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Those articles and sections I cited are germane to SCOTUS’ constitutional authority as applied to this case. You have yet to refute my application of those articles and sections I cited.

[Nuc 1.1]

I don’t believe you refuted anything. I stated that congress can impeach at will and that the SCOTUS has no role to play. You countered that the Chief Justice sits as the judge in the senate trial to support your argument that the Supreme Court ha# a role to play. The Chief Justice is not the Supreme Court. There is no role for the Supreme Court, appellate or otherwise. The Article III citation you made describes the role of the federal courts in the normal course of our nation. Since the impeachment process is specifically called out in the Constitution there is no role for the federal courts since they are not called out in the impeachment process. There are many informed opinions from legal scholars on this subject, and they are just opinions. Following the written wording of the Constitution prevents the at will impeachment of the President for political purposes. Sadly we quit following the Constitution long ago. The nation has become ripe for a communist takeover because of it.

[AndyJackson]

And Supreme Court precedent going back to Marbury v. Madison empowers the justices to resolve conflicts between the executive and legislative branches by applying the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

It isn't Marbury v Madison that gives the SC these powers. It is the Constitution itself, which states in Article III:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,...judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers ...the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.