Posted on 12/20/2019 7:37:01 AM PST by NobleFree
No it doesn't. And what the House says can place no restriction on the Senate's sole prerogative to try impeachments.
Not looking for an argument, but this may be helpful:
Although not familiar with the inner ways of the Congress, it appears “exhibit to the Senate” in the Congressional Record is simply a means of providing a courtesy copy of House action that may come to the Senate’s attention.
“Under the rules of the Senate, an impeachment trial may begin only after the House managers deliver the articles of impeachment. Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn’t select House managers until she had a better idea about the parameters of the trial.”
Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative political group, said “.... it’s entirely a political matter and no one could force the House to transmit the two articles of impeachment in a timely manner…It is hard to imagine a court getting involved…”
The games will continue at this level until Pelosi and her team determine otherwise. Who could blame her for trying to avoid taking her case to jurors who are clearly biased despite an oath “to do impartial justice”?
McConnell may rue the day he recently declared he would “coordinate with the defendant”; likewise, Lindsey with his “I will not be fair” statement.
Have a nice weekend.
The Senate can, and IMO should, change this rule. Try and acquit the man and end this farce.
There is an evidentiary record much thicker than the articles. It is up to the house to bring the evidence and stand ready to present its argument. The articles are an unsubstantiated conclusion. The trial is to determine is the conclusion is substantiated, and it is up to the house to prosecute its case before the senate.
GianCarlo Canaparo, a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, agrees: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3802466/posts
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Read the resolution. In part it says that the "articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate".
And what the House says can place no restriction on the Senate's sole prerogative to try impeachments.
True, but that's not the point. It's the Constitution that places the restriction on the Senate. The Senate must use an impeachment resolution from the House. And the resolution from the House on the House website, only says to use a copy "exhibited to" the Senate.
Until the resolution is "exhibited to the Senate", the resolution is indeed null and void.
Or not, if it so chooses; the Senate can set a date on which it will begin the trial with or without the House managers.
I did; it says:
"Resolved. That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors in violation of his constitutional oath of office and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:" [emphases added]
That the President is impeached is a clause independent from exhibition to the Senate.
It's the Constitution that places the restriction on the Senate. The Senate must use an impeachment resolution from the House.
Exactly where and with exactly what words does the Constitution supposedly say this?
And, I'm just quoting the Constitution verbatim.
The USSC has proven time and again that they care not for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
Agree 1000% - but since their point in (incompletely) citing the explicit requirements was simply to discount the idea that there could be any other requirements, I'm not too excited about the inaccuracy.
That the President is impeached is a clause independent from exhibition to the Senate.
The will of the House, as written in the resolution, is that the president be both impeached AND that the exhibit of impeachment resolution be sent the Senate. The resolution depends on both clauses to represent the will of the House, not just either clause.
Until both clauses are met, the resolution remains unfulfilled.
It's the Constitution that places the restriction on the Senate. The Senate must use an impeachment resolution from the House.
Exactly where and with exactly what words does the Constitution supposedly say this?
The Constitutional plainly states that it's the House that has the powers of impeachment. You don't think it stands to reason then that the Senate must use a valid House resolution?
She's always been stuck with those jurors. What she is trying to do is usurp the power of the senate to set its own rules to try the case.
Even if Mitch hadn't announced his conclusion that the articles are baloney, she'd have made up an excuse why the Senate process is defective.
I do agree that all of this is theater for the public's benefit. There are no rules in Congress. It is a failed institution.
My point exactly.
Until both clauses are met, the resolution remains unfulfilled. Which in no way implies that there is no impeachment for the Senate to try. The House said they DID impeach and WOULD exhibit; the former is true regardless of their own nonperformance of the latter.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will tell you one day what it mean, because that is the only way the question will be answered. Until then everyone is entitled to their opinion. The answer will be just as political as the whole issue and we will have to live with it.
I am pretty sure that Nancy demonstrated this week that rules don't rule.
That may be a cold, hard fact, although one may be thought an alarmist by saying so. Let me pile on with a broad worse case, near-term scenario.
With the Kavanaugh fiasco, Team Pelosi no doubt measured how easy it was to delay and seriously threaten one of two critical processes, USSC nominations and presidential elections. It used all manner of tactics that, if not outright criminal, dishonest or unethical, are typically regarded as “unfair”.
Moving to the second target, even today a number of credentialled liberal voices continue to argue Trump unmistakably committed a number of impeachable offenses; including, despite the Mueller report, that he solicited the help of the Russians in his 2016 election. This suggests the present Articles of Impeachment fronted with fluff may have been intentionally understated.
Allowing Pelosi to call Trump officials and obtain evidence that supports, at least in the public eye, new charges will provide her the opportunity to amend the Articles and delay for as long as possible both the start and completion of the trial.
IMO, taking it as close as possible to the 2020 election is her primary goal; along the way she will attempt to create a public mindset that unnerves additional RINO’s.
For a Stephen King-like ending, bear in mind how close in the line of succession the Speaker is to the Oval Office.
Merry Christmas!
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.