Posted on 12/20/2019 7:37:01 AM PST by NobleFree
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. United States (1993):
"the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments [are]: The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings" (emphasis added)
Ergo, if Mad Nan chooses not to 'formally deliver' the articles of impeachment and/or to not send 'managers' to present the House's case, the Senate is well within its Constitutional authority to proceed without them.
This is not what the Constitution says. Not two-thirds vote, but two-thirds votes of Members present. Big difference.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 states:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 states:
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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
They certainly can. But unless and until they do - Impeachment from a Senate level is DOA.
The point remaining that all power is now in the Senate's hands, Mad Nan's delusions notwithstanding.
Nancy Pelousy can not withhold the Articles of Impeachment.
She already conveyed them to the Senate via CSPAN.
The senate isn’t even in session.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AHA! I caught you making a mistake. (lol)
I respectfully disagree. The Constitution allows each House to make their own rules on passage of bills and resolutions, the Courts have no say in the matter. Sorry, that’s way it is, as you point out the Courts have deference to the legislative on that.
Get a writ of Mandamus forcing the passing of Articles from the Supreme Court , have Judge Roberts sit in at the start then vote to dismiss on the grounds no crime was committed in the articles sent.
The Senate does indeed have all the power.
cboldt has done excellent research into what the Senate did in regards to Clinton.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3802017/posts?page=17#17
I believe they could and should do essentially the same here.
Resolve that unless the Articles are received by XX/XX/2020, the Senate will immediately declare that they are null and void and that they will NOT be accepted.
On Dec 19, 1998, the House passed two articles of impeachment against President Clinton and a resolution naming the managers. The managers then walked the articles over to the Secretary of the Senate who recorded them as received.
The House "reappointed" the managers on Jan 6, 1999. It was a new Congress (106th). That resolution began with:
Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in House Resolution 614 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress adopted by the House of Representatives and delivered to the Senate on December 19, 1998 . . . .
The trial began on Jan 7, 1999 with the swearing in of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the House managers reading the charges.
"These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings" (emphasis added)No, it doesn't follow. The House failing to follow through on impeachment doesn't change the Senate proceedings. The proceedings are what happens once the Senate takes it up. Not something that happens before.Ergo, if Mad Nan chooses not to 'formally deliver' the articles of impeachment and/or to not send 'managers' to present the House's case, the Senate is well within its Constitutional authority to proceed without them.
Thanks to the poster for the Senate rules regarding impeachment. This is the hold up, and Mitch isn’t into childish games in the senate. If she continues to stonewall, he may consider trying to change the senate rules, but not sure if that only takes 51 or 67 votes.
https://www.congress.gov/crec/1998/12/19/CREC-1998-12-19-pt1-PgH12042.pdf
Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ So Article IV was not agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.It is this resolution appointing managers, encumbering resources for legal and clerical staff, and "filing with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or subsequent to , the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary," that has not yet occurred.___________________________________________
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That Mr. Hyde, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Canady, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Rogan, and Mr. Graham are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following:(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary.
Until the articles are formerly filed with the Secretary of the Senate, then I don't think that the Senate has anything to act upon.
And as a historical aside, I was reminded after reading the above proceedings that during the debate for impeachment, Bob Livingston, who was picked to succeed Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, resigned. Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi could do the same.
House debate on the merits of Impeachment of Slick Willie:
https://www.congress.gov/crec/1998/12/19/CREC-1998-12-19-pt1-PgH11968-3.pdf
And if the Senate adopts a rule whereby they will act on articles of impeachment upon entry in the Congressional Record of article text and a finalized vote to pass, that's their prerogative.
That's up to the Senate to decide; the Congressional Record already contains the text of the articles and the finalized vote that passed them.
It is now ENTIRELY up to McConnell and the Senate to do with as they see fit. Nancy can resume pouring vodka into her pie hole.
I think he may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night....
Hypotheticals are just that, hypothetical. They haven’t, and they likely won’t.
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.