Say POTUS committed murder, and was impeached for that. The only thing the Senate cn impose is get him pout of office and disaqualify him from holding federel office. Any punishment for the crime of murder would be handled by indictment, and eventual presentation of indictment and trial in a court.
But what if the impeachment article is thin? Can the senate convict and then impose a "no punishment" remedy?
I suppose it could. It could also just nullify the impeachment by voting to acquit.
I can't imagine 67 Senators voting "guilty" on these articles. The language of the accusations is incendiary. Look below for the basis of the conclusion, and the accusation is nonsense.
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. (Article I, section 3)
I’m curious if by “Judgement...shall not extend further...” means that removal from office etc is the maximum judgement, or the only judgement, if found guilty. If the former, then would it be possible for the Senate to find Trump guilty, but then not punish him or give an insignificant punishment (like censure)?
The Constitution is explicitly limiting the Senate’s power when giving out the punishment side of the verdict if found that the individual is guilty. This means the Senate cannot sentence the individual to 300 years behind bars.
In Clinton’s impeachment trial, the Senators present (this is a very important word in this clause) failed to get the two-thirds vote needed to convict and removal from office. However, after he was acquitted by the Senate, Clinton, still in office as POTUS, was cited by a Federal District Judge for civil contempt of court for willful failure to obey the judge’s orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. The judged ruled Clinton pay a $90K fine and was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court for disciplinary action. Clinton eventually settled where his Arkansas law license was suspended for 5 years and a fine of $25K in lieu of no criminal charges would be filed for perjury or obstruction of justice. Upon his law license was suspened he was also suspended from the US Supreme Court bar to which he resigned from during the appeal period.
In Clinton’s Impeachment he committed a crime he would have to account for after he left office. Although he was acquitted by the Senate, he was impeached by the HoR. He was cited civilly for contempt of court to which he settled on the day before he left office.
Clinton’s impeachment showed that a President, once leaving office, could be held civilly liable for actions illegally committed while in office. However, the Senate could only render conviction and sentence for removal of office and prevent from holding office again.
There is a Congressman, Representative Alcee Hastings (D), who was a Judge in the Southern District of Florida who was impeached on October 20, 1989 and removed from office for accepting a bribe and committing perjury. Since he was not disqualified from holding office he ran for office and won the seat in his district. This is important because he will be one of the managers the House sends over to the Senate for the Impeachment trial.
In Alcee Hastings case he was removed from his office as a judge but not disqualified from holding office. To date, the House has impeached 20 federal officers, 15 federal judges, three Presidents, 1 Cabinet Secretary and a US Senator.
I find the US Senator impeachment interesting because the Senate concluded that members of Congress are not “civil officers”, per the Constitution, for the purposes of impeachment. This is another discussion for another day.