Posted on 01/17/2021 7:37:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
With the second impeachment of President Donald Trump, the Congress is set for one of the most bizarre moments in constitutional history: the removal of someone who has already left office. The retroactive removal would be a testament to the timeliness of rage. While it is not without precedent, it is without logic.
The planned impeachment trial of Donald Trump after he leaves office would be our own version of the Cadaver Synod. In 897, Pope Stephen VI and his supporters continued to seethe over the action of Pope Formosus, who not only died in 896 but was followed by another pope, Boniface VI. After the brief rule of Boniface VI, Pope Stephen set about to even some scores. He pulled Formosus out of his tomb, propped him up in court, and convicted him of variety of violations of canon law. Formosus was then taken out, three fingers cut off, and eventually thrown in the Tiber River.
While some may be looking longingly at the Potomac for their own Cadaver Synod, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have stated that their primary interest is in the possible disqualification of Trump from holding future federal office. Disqualification however is an optional penalty that follows a conviction and removal. It may be added to the primary purpose of removal referenced in the Constitution. The Trump trial would convert this supplemental punishment into the primary purpose of the trial.
This did happen before but that precedent is only slightly better than the Cadaver Synod. That case involved William Belknap who served as Secretary of War to President Ulysses S. Grant. Belknap resigned after allegations of corruption — just shortly before a House vote of impeachment. The Senate held a trial but acquitted him. Twenty nine of 66 voting senators disagreed in a threshold motion that Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment . . . notwithstanding his resignation.”
In fairness to the Democrats, I have long rejected the argument that there comes a point when it is too late to impeach a president while he is in office. As I said in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings, the House is under a duty to impeach if it believes that a president has committed a high crime and misdemeanor. If that occurred on the last day of a term, it would still be warranted.
My objection to this second impeachment was that it proceeded without any deliberation of the traditional impeachment process. It was a snap impeachment, which is to the Constitution what Snapchat is to conversations. It reduces the process to a raw, brief and partisan vote. This could have been avoided. A hearing could have been held in a day to allow the language of the article to be amended and the implications of the impeachment considered. It would also have allowed for a formal demand for a response from the president.
Instead, the impeachment was pushed through on a partisan muscle vote with only ten Republicans supporting the single article. It was an ironic moment. In the last Trump impeachment, I chastised the Democrats for pushing through an impeachment on the slimmest record and the shortest time frame of any presidential impeachment. They insisted that there was no time for witnesses before the House Judiciary hearing, but later waited weeks to submit the articles to the Senate. Now they have outdone that record with an impeachment with no traditional record in a matter of a couple of days. The Senate will not sit until January 19th and any trial would likely occur after January 20th.
I have long wrestled with the notion of a retroactive impeachment trial. I can see the value of establishing that a president was not just accused but convicted of unconstitutional acts. There is also the value of disqualification of such an individual from future office. However, what was an intriguing academic puzzle is now a pressing constitutional concern.
The impeachment trial of a private citizen raises a host of constitutional and practical problems. For example, a president can rely on publicly-funded lawyers like the White House Counsel and can assert presidential privileges. After leaving office, an ex-president would not only pay for his own defense, but he will lose the ability to make privilege determinations. Indeed, many such assertions would be subject to the review of his successor, Joe Biden. It would be like Pope Stephen making determinations on critical evidence of Pope Formosus after pulling him out of the crypt.
The main issue however would be whether this is really an impeachment trial, as opposed to some curious constitutional post-mortem on a passed presidency. That question could face Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts if he has summoned for this role. A chief justice does not simply show up at anything deemed an impeachment trial. He must make an independent judgment over his carrying out a constitutional function. Even if he rules that this is a valid trial, that ruling could be rejected by the Senate in a motion to dismiss the article. In the Clinton impeachment, Democrats demanded such a threshold vote before a trial. Of course, since there is no president to try for impeachment, the Senate may not even ask Roberts to preside — a telling departure that only undermines the trial as a whole.
This impeachment should end with the Trump administration. I do not fault those who view the president’s conduct as impeachable. The speech was reckless and wrong. My primary objection was to the use of a snap impeachment and the language of the article of impeachment. That is now part of Trump’s presidential legacy. The question is now what will be the troubling constitutional legacy left by the Senate in the trial of an ex-president.
In my view, a retroactive removal vote would combine with the use of a snap impeachment to fundamentally altering the role of impeachment in the United States. It would take a rush to judgment and turn it into a parade of constitutional horribles. Any party could retroactively impeach or remove a former president for the purpose of disqualifying him from office. Thus, if a party feared a one-term president’s possible run, they could hold use impeachment to eliminate the political threat. With the snap impeachment, it would be worse than creating a type of “no confidence vote” under our Constitution. After a non confidence vote in the United Kingdom, a former prime minister can still run again for office.
A conviction would also not bring the closure as many may hope. Such disqualification would be one of the few impeachment issues that could be challenged in court. Trump would have standing to sue for his right to run again and he could well win. He would then be more popular than ever with many citizens eager to defy the Washington establishment. There is another path. The Senate could end the trial with a threshold vote and let history and the voters be the final judge of Donald J. Trump.
Like I’ve said before..Pope Frankie may be a bad pope,but we Catholics have had worse...POPE STEPHEN,perfect example.....
RE: POPE STEPHEN,perfect example.....
OK, what did he do?
As if the Constitution has any relevance or meaning anymore......
Bill Cunningham on the radio is REALLY ticking me off. This is the second time he has excused the heinous cowardice of Mike Pence when he single-handedly could have brought all this horror to a quick halt by voting to allow the multitude of evidence to be mulled over in 10 additional days by the troubled states’ legislatures. He is saying that was not constitutionally Pence’s job and so Pence was correct. So then why have several distinguished Constitutional attorneys said Pence punted and that he very well did have the power to grant the extra 10 days.
He put a dead guy on trial......
Grave robbing, desecration of a corpse by cutting off his fingers, throwing his body in the river?
Grave robbing, desecration of a corpse by cutting off his fingers, throwing his body in the river?
That’s cause once again impeachment is for removal and you can’t remove a private citizen from an office he already left
What Constitution?
The Senate cannot “try” a private citizen. That would be an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
Alexander VI is also a contender for worst pope ever. Supposedly poisoned his enemies. Had a mistress while pope. The early Jesuit St. Francis Borgia was descended from one of Alexander VI’s illegitimate children, as was Catherine of Braganza (Queen of England as wife of Charles II). But I think he was only accused of bad conduct, not of any heresy.
Turley seems to assume that the people who invaded the Capitol did so as a result of something Trump said in his speech on Jan. 6, which has been disproven (chronologically impossible). Trump should be impeached for exercising his right to free speech and encouraging citizens to exercise their right to assemble peacefully?
Don’t forget,he had to go through a trial BEFORE being tossed into the river.....
WE have had some bad popes,but digging up a corpse and putting it on trial ,has got to be the worst pope....
Those were far more primitive times, ordered by more primitive minds.
It seems to me to be much worse when a (nominal) Pope, in current times, subverts historically accepted understanding of Scripture for political purposes.
Touche.....
Impeach Obama 2023!
Uhh... how do you fire someone who’s contract has not been renewed and has moved on?
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."
An "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" is an appointed office. The Constitution gives two and two only criteria for being elected to the Presidency.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Supreme Court has determined that any additional restrictions on this are unconstitutional, for instance, the requirement that the person standing in the election shall disclose his/her tax returns. Any additional restriction imposed by Congress absent an amendment to the Constitution would be unconstitutional. No one expects that a few hundred men voting in Congress can overrule the will of 80 million people if they wish to vote that way and vote an impeached person into the Presidency.
Note that the restrictions the 14th Amendment impose on ex-Confederate officials specifically exclude the Presidency even though it now includes other elected officials.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Senator, Representative, electors of the President, appointed federal office holders, and state officials including the Governor, legislators, and judges - but not the President himself.
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.