If it is done unconstitutionally, then wouldn’t the courts have to become involved? I don’t know, that is why I ask.
The point I was trying to make..and did so badly perhaps...is that there seems to be no specific guidelines spelled out regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense and so the courts would choose *not* to get involved.
Unless I'm mistaken...and I certainly could be...the President has no "Constitutional right" not to be impeached.
The Court is involved, as the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial.
The question is how much judicial authority does the Chief Justice really have during the trial?
On the one hand, separation of powers still exists. It's still the Senators' chamber and the Chief Justice is a guest there. It's the Senators who vote on the rules of the trial, and the Chief Justice has no say in the matter. The House Managers act as the attorneys, but the Senators can still vote on whether to allow witnesses or not.
During the Clinton trial, the House Managers several times referred to the Senators as "the jury," until Iowa Senator Tom Harkin objected, insisting that they were still Senators.
The bottom line is that the Chief Justice was turned mostly into a figurehead, as the Senators themselves controlled most of the proceedings.
-PJ