What does the US Constitution say about removing a president who is out of office?

FR ^ | 1/23/21 | Sidebar Monitor

[Sidebar Moderator]

What does the US Constitution say about removing a president who is out of office?

And who presides over this farce? The Constitution says the Chief Justice will preside over a trial of the "president". BUT TRUMP is now a private citizen. Joe Biden is president.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Yep, shamefully, for all intents and purposes, it’s being discarded as used tissue paper.

[jimfree]

Hello, PJ. The CJ is only required for the trial of a president - apparently to eliminate the conflict of interest of the VP. A former president on trial does not create that conflict.

[Political Junkie Too]

Co-equal doesn't mean equality of power, it means separation of power at an equal level of hierarchy.

To your point:

1. Congress passes laws, but the Executive can veto Congress.
2. The Executive makes appointments, but Congress must confirm them.
3. The same as #2, but with treaties.
4. The Judiciary rules on the valid application of the laws, but Congress sets the structure of the courts and the jurisdictions of the cases they hear (except for original jurisdiction per the Constitution).

One could argue that Congress has slowly encroached on the Executive by excessive oversight. There is no specific oversight power of Congress, but it is implied by the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I Section 8:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress interprets this as needing to oversee the proper execution of the laws that are passed, but then they stray beyond "necessary" execution into other areas.

Oversight is also implied by the impeachment clause, suggesting that Congress is always on the lookout for impeachable behaviors (treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors).

Oversight on Congress is implied by the Article I Section 6 privileges clause:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The Executive can bring charges against a Congressman for felonious behavior or "breach of the peace."

Interestingly, "breach of the peace" seems to be just as vague a term as "high crimes and misdemeanors" when it comes to judging actionable behavior, but I don't see anyone claiming breach of the peace when Maxine Waters calls for harassing people on the streets.

It seems that these days, Congress sees anything a Republican President does as impeachable, and nothing that it does as a breach of the peace, including supporting and bailing out rioters and encouraging the intimidation of people and driving them out of restaurants.

-PJ

[Dr. Ursus]

The word impeachment gives schumer a ..........!

[Redmen4ever]

boycott = letting the remaining Senators determine the majority

similarly, voting for a 3rd party = helps the major party most different

Democrats kept the Green Party and Kanye West OFF the ballots of off which of the following states?

A.Arizona
B.Georgia
C.Michigan
D.Nevada
E.Pennsylvania
F.Wisconsin
G.All of the above

[Sidebar Moderator]

That makes him an accomplice to an ‘UPRISING’! 😂😂

[Sidebar Moderator]

Well said.

[Old Yeller]

Says it’s as impossible. As impossible as the world being created from nothing.

[DoodleDawg]

Trump was impeached while in office, hence the reason why Pelosi rushed it through. Having been impeached then a strict reading of the constitution states that a trial is required. However I highly doubt that Madison and the representatives at the Constitutional Convention ever imagined the idea of trying a former president, so I expect that Trump’s lawyer will begin by arguing against the constitutionality of trying him. This is going to drag out so if the impeachment trial starts on February 8th, as Schumer stated it would, I’d be highly surprised.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Are you sure about that?"

They certainly lack the cojones to defy the Swamp.

[Political Junkie Too]

I concede that it is an interesting point, but the trial of a former President becomes moot as he is already removed from office by the Electoral College.

So, if you think about it, this impeachment is really a Constitutional Conflict. What we have now is two Constitutional bodies in conflict: the Legislature and the Electoral College. The Electoral College did what the House of Representatives wanted to do.

The former is a permanent body and the latter is a transient one, but it is the latter that chooses the President and so has an enormous, but singular, power. They chose to not reelect the President, and Congress should accept that and move on.

The Electoral College shouldn't be minimized because of its temporary existence. It is a "thing in the Constitution" and is therefore "Supreme law of the Land." I won't go so far as to call it a co-equal branch of government, but it has a plenary power of its own and Congress and the Supreme Court should acknowledge it and stop this nonsensical impeachment trial as moot, since another Constitutional body already acted to achieve the intended result.

Pelosi and Schumer are just miffed that they won't get the chance to exercise the second penalty of impeachment because the Electoral College beat them to the first penalty.

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t preside. The President of the Senate (Kamala Harris) presides.

No, it's Roberts. Article I, Section 3: "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."

[bricklayer]

....so they are admitting he is still President?

[jimfree]

Absolutely a constitutional conflict and the Pelosi/Schumer gang never did give a damn about the Constitution.

[Bonemaker]

Roberts will find it in there somewhere.

[BroJoeK]

"This is vindictiveness played in fear that he will return."

No, no, it's even more wicked than that!

The real reason for impeaching Donald Trump is because Democrats know, in their hearts of hearts, that they stole the election and Donald Trump is, lawfully, still president.
Without impeachment & conviction, President Trump could return to office whenever the Democrat election crimes are fully exposed.

[Vermont Lt]

And it takes away any money for him. No library, no pension, no annual office staff...etc. not that Trump needs the money, but the mob thinks it would bother him.

[BroJoeK]

"It’s out of fear that he’s still the president, and he’s capable of making their lives pure hell."

Exactly right -- Democrats know they stole the election and now must, must impeach/convict Trump to solidify Biden's fake victory & faux presidency.

[BroJoeK]

"But the Constitution says: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”. It doesn’t say “when the former president ...”"

Democrats know they stole the election and Trump is still the legitimate President.
That's why they must do everything possible -- impeach, convict, prosecute, insult, jail, whatever they can -- to nail down the coffin lid on his presidency and prevent him from ever rising again politically.

[BroJoeK]

"If the Democrats are so hell-bent on impeaching Trump while he is out of office, they must be going under the assumption that he is still president and that Biden is illegitimate due to voter fraud perpetuated by the Democrats."

Thanks for a great post, I think you are exactly right here.