Posted on 01/23/2009 2:17:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Illinoise Governor Rod Blagojevich claims that the Illinois Senate Rules of Impeachment 8(b) and 15(f) essentially deny him the right to due process in the upcoming Illinois Senate impeachment trial. Is he correct? Does he have a constitutional right to challenge the accusations against him and call witnesses for his defense? Is he incorrect? Is he simply an employee of the State of Illinois and therefore subject to being fired for cause? The Illinois Senate contends that the impeachment trial is not a criminal proceeding. What say you?
Rule 15(f) It is never in order to request a subpoena for the testimony of any person or for the production of documents or other materials from that person if the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has indicated that the person's testimony, or inquiry into the subject matter of that person's testimony, could compromise the U.S. Attorney's criminal investigation of Rod R. Blagojevich, as exemplified by, but not limited to, exhibits 10, 24, and 30 of the House impeachment record, unless the U.S. Attorney subsequently indicates otherwise.
Rule 8(b) The House Prosecutor or the Governor or his counsel may object to the admission or exclusion of evidence. Any objection must be addressed to the Chief Justice. No objection, however, may be made against all or any part of the House impeachment record filed by the House Prosecutor with the Secretary.Illinois House Resolution on Impeachment
Illinois Senate Rules of Impeachment
Illinois Senate Tribunal Documents
United States Constitution, Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
FIRE HIM!!!
Good summary; except Hastings Senate conviction was overturned by a District Court but didn’t go the Supreme Court. The case was returned to the Senate to await the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Walter Nixon (1993), another federal judge who was impeached. Nixon was challenging the fact his Senate trial was held before a panel of 12 Senators and not the full Senate. The question before the Court was whether the Senate rule allowing the panel could be reviewed by the courts.
The Court ruled 9-0 that the courts could not review the Senate procedures since the Constitution gave the Senate the sole power to conduct impeachment trials. Hastings was challenging his impeachment on the grounds he was acquitted of the charges.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/506/224/case.html
So basically whatever the State Senate’s procedures are, that’s what will govern Blago’s impeachment, no matter how unfair they may seem. And the decsion cannot be appealed to the courts.
That is a perfect analogy, Buckeye Texan. The impeachment of a public official means that he has been indicted. Under the federal Constitution this function is performed by the house. Once impeached (indicted)by the house, a trial is held by the Senate to determine whether he should be removed from office.
Under the federal constitution, the ONLY issue that can be decided by impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate is whether to remove an official from office. Any criminal or civil penalties are entirely separate issues, and would be conducted in a court of law.
As was so elegantly stated by DeepThought42, the actions of the legislative body in an impeachment and trial are not open to judicial review, as they occur solely within the framework of the constitution, and are not therefore subject to any of the laws and regulations passed by the government, such being subordinate to the constitution. The check and balance to the authority of Congress in such matters is the constitutionally mandated limitation that the only penalty Congress may impose upon someone convicted by the Senate is their removal from office: Congress has no authority to try an accused for any other crimes or questions, such authority being solely reserved to the Judiciary. Likewise, the Judiciary may not order a federal official removed from elective or judicial office following a conviction (recall the Ted Stevens case).
I assume that the IL constitution has established a system similar to the federal one, but I have not read the IL constitution, nor am I likely to get a burning desire anytime soon to do so.
That is why Hastings was wrong in the Supreme Court, and Blago is wrong (and wildly self-delusional) now.
John ; Billybob
www.coreyfriedman.blog.com
You can see why blago isnt entitled to DP.
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.