Impeachment is a political process. There is no guarantee of due process.
It can’t be unconstitutional. Unsavory, overreaching and setting a terrible precedent? Yes. But not unconstitutional
I think our Founding Fathers would disagree with you. They expressly put "high crimes and misdemeanors" into the language specific to impeachment precisely to avoid situations like this one.
The fact is, Democrats cannot impeach President Trump because they don't like him and how he conducts himself. Too bad, so sad.
This entire "impeachment" shouldn't even be allowed in the Senate. Don't give it a single shred of credibility, period.
Denial of due process is unconstitutional. A majority of Congress may not deny them to someone they dislike to get them.
The Constitution doesn’t give Congress absolute powers to do whatever it wants.
If you take that position, impeachment is just another political weapon.
“Unsavory, overreaching and setting a terrible precedent? Yes. But not unconstitutional.”
I must disagree. The Constitution states that impeachment may be bought against the President for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. The founding fathers quite deliberately intended in that phrase to make it a very high bar indeed.
What the democrats have relied upon for the articles of impeachment they have introduced fall painfully short of that magnitude And therefor fail to meet constitutional muster.
Yes, but it is described with specific words and phrases in the US Constitution. Some of those being:
Article II Sec 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."
This is easily (and rather obviously) interpreted as saying a President can NOT be removed just because the House and Senate do not like him. SCOTUS could reinforce that with a ruling that would serve as clear precedent. It would be MUCH better for SCOTUS to do this now, rather than AFTER, should the President be "convicted" of a non-crime. Imagine the uproar if a President was impeached and removed from office, only for SCOTUS to pull out the constitution and point out the above, simple clause, and invalidate the whole circus.
At this point, it seems highly unlikely that the President will be convicted in the Senate. However, due to the idiocy of Pelosi, we are at a point where something that "goes without saying" needs to be said, and set in precedent. Even if it doesn't happen until AFTER he is acquitted, this argument should go to SCOTUS. Reinforcing the clear language of Article II sec 4 would not only be a huge slapdown of Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler, but it would ERASE Trump's impeachment, deeming it unconstitutional and illegitimate.
No. There are some rules that must be followed.
The Aticles are unconstitutional.
Neither one of them fit the guidelines for impeachable offenses as described in the Constitution.
Wrong. The “offenses” are well described in the Constitution, for which a President may be impeached, tried and removed from office. Just cause the “dems want to, and disagree on policy or person” is not sufficient. Dismissed AND Acquitted of improper charges.