Posted on 06/01/2019 1:09:00 PM PDT by billorites
Its as if nothing happened. Special counsel Robert Mueller and the Justice Department found no wrongdoing by President Trump, so House Democrats stepped up their calls for impeachment. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena for millions of pages of evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, including grand-jury material, which is secret under the law. When the department didnt comply, Democrats said there was a constitutional crisis, and the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.
Yet if there is a constitutional crisis, its source is the Democrats. They are abusing the powers of investigation and impeachment in an illegitimate effort to unseat a president they despise.
Congressional Democrats claim they have the power to investigate the president to conduct oversight and hold him accountable. That elides an important constitutional distinction. As the Supreme Court said in Watkins v. U.S. (1957), Congress may inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government. Executive departments and agencies are created by Congress and therefore accountable to it. The president, by contrast, is not a creature of lawmakers. He is Congresss coequal, accountable to Congress only via impeachment.
To commence impeachment, the House has a constitutional obligation to articulate clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. A two-year Justice Department investigation did not find that Mr. Trump had committed crimes. On the Russian collusion issue, Mr. Mueller reported that his investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Regarding obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller did not draw ultimate conclusions about the Presidents conduct, so the duty to do so fell on his boss, Mr. Barrwho, with senior Justice Department officials, concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
House Democrats claim theyre entitled to see Mr. Muellers underlying materials. But Congress may not use its subpoena power for a prosecutorial do-over. The Constitution gives law-enforcement authority to the executive, not the legislative, branch. In Quinn v. U.S. (1955), the Supreme Court said that Congresss power to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary.
Impeachment isnt a law-enforcement function, but demanding Mr. Muellers documents to search for impeachable offenses is still unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. Outsourcing aspects of the process to the other branches of government violates separation of powers.
Unfortunately, there is a precedent for such outsourcing, though it is one that ought to give Democrats pause: the impeachment of President Clinton. The offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeachedperjury before a grand jury and obstruction of independent counsel Kenneth Starrs investigationwere established by Mr. Starr, who informed Congress that the evidence of wrongdoing is substantial and credible, and that the wrongdoing is of sufficient gravity that it warrants referral to Congress. Mr. Starr issued a report and turned his materials over to the House because the now-defunct statute under which he operated required it. The Justice Departments special-counsel regulations, which govern Mr. Muellers investigation, do not.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel in Morrison v. Olson (1988). It did not address the constitutionality of the requirement that independent counsels turn over evidence of impeachable offenses to the House. If it had, there would be deep concerns about separation of powers. In addition to the textual declaration that the House has the sole power of impeachment, the debate over impeachment at the Constitutional Convention supports an outsourcing prohibition.
Delegates were deeply divided on whether the president should be subject to impeachment at alland if so, which institution should have this great power. They considered vesting the impeachment power in state legislatures but rejected the idea. The concern was that it would make the president too dependent on the states, endangering the vertical separation of powers. They also pondered entrusting impeachment authority to the judiciaryessentially, to the Supreme Courtbut concluded that would give the judiciary too much power and enable it to impeach its own members.
Eventually and with misgivings, the Framers settled on vesting impeachment authority in the House, with trial by the Senate. Their greatest fear was that this arrangement would destroy separation of powers by rendering the president perpetually dependent on legislative approval. Charles Pinckney believed congressional impeachment power would chill the presidents exercise of his core constitutional powers (such as vetoing legislation) and encourage Congress to hold impeachment as a rod over the Executive and by that means effectually destroy his independence. Rufus King opined that under no circumstances ought [the president] to be impeachable by the Legislature, because such power would be destructive of his independence.
The Framers took pains to devise meaningful limits on the impeachment power. When George Mason proposed to add maladministration to treason and bribery as a basis for impeachment, James Madison demurred: So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton argued that the greatest danger of giving Congress the impeachment power is that its decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. To allay these concerns, the Framers limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanorsnot mere political disagreements.
In addition, by resting the entire impeachment power in Congress, the Framers constrained it. Congress was to have limited investigatory power and to conduct its proceedings in a transparent, politically accountable manner. That effectively meant presidential misconduct would have to be open and notorious to be impeachable.
In that regard, at least, the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson was exemplary. His firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton was in open defiance of the Tenure in Office Act, although the Supreme Court eventually concluded the law itself was unconstitutional. Republicans who pushed Johnsons impeachment were held politically accountable, with Democrats gaining 20 House seats out of 243 in the 1868 elections.
If the House can outsource impeachment, the deepest concerns of the Framers will become reality. Impeachment would have few limits and no political accountability. As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Mueller legitimately obtained information from a grand jury, wiretaps and other forms of surveillance unavailable to Congress. If Congress can secure these materials by simply commanding the executive branch to turn them over, it would tremendously augment its power.
Turnover of prosecutorial materials would allow Congress to hide behind the fact-finding and legal determinations of the other branches, thereby diminishing its own political accountability. Because the nations law-enforcement officials have concluded Mr. Trump has not committed any crimes, Democratic representatives cannot legitimately draft articles of impeachment accusing him of criminal conduct involving the same offenses of which he was cleared by the Mueller investigation. The House could impeach him for misconduct that doesnt violate criminal statutessay, abuse of power or inappropriate behavior. But lawmakers must be candid about what exactly the charge is.
Proceeding in such a fashionnot hiding behind criminal accusations that prosecutors have rejectedwould require House Democrats to assume the full political risk for their impeachment efforts. Instead, they are pressing Mr. Mueller to testify, hoping he will say something beyond what is contained in his report, and to obtain his investigatory materials. By second-guessing the prosecutors and recasting Mr. Trumps conduct as criminal-law violations, Democrats seek cover for their raw political push to unseat a president.
Outsourcing impeachment also fundamentally deforms the executive branch. In Federalist No. 51, Madison explained that each branch must possess the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. . . . The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. When executive-branch officials see themselves as working for Congress, there is severe constitutional dislocation.
Mr. Muellers team, for example, embraced the proposition that a president can obstruct justice by exercising his constitutional powers, such as firing the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if his decisions have a corrupt motive. That position runs roughshod over opinions of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, which has consistently concluded that, to protect separation of powers, laws should not be construed to apply to the presidents performance of his official duties, absent a clear statement otherwise.
The obstruction statutes contain no such clear statement. And while Mr. Mueller refrained from ascribing corrupt motives to Mr. Trump, his legal view that the president can obstruct justice while discharging his constitutional powers is at odds with constitutional principles and would have never been adopted by the Justice Department in the normal course of business.
Allowing executive branch officials to investigate a sitting president all but invites a coup. Former Justice Department attorney Neal Katyal recently admitted that the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. Mr. Mueller hinted at the same idea in a public statement Wednesday: The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
To Mr. Katyal and others now proclaiming a constitutional crisis, the special counsel works for Congress, not the president. Similarly, House Democrats claim it was illegitimate for Mr. Barr and other senior Justice Department officials to reach a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction of justice. In their view, that determination should have been made by Congresswhich has no power to make prosecutorial judgments.
These views reflect a deep constitutional rot. While executive-branch officials must abide by legitimate oversight requests from lawmakers, they work for the president, not for Congress. Investigations of a sitting president by the executive branch threaten the separation of powers by encouraging insubordination to the president. Executive officials may be willing to help grease the wheels of impeachment. Thats no way to run a government of separated powers.
Americas experience with special prosecutors, independent counsels and special counsels has left a trail of partisan-fueled destruction. These investigations are inherently harmful to national unity and a stain on the constitutional fabric. The only way to restore the separation of powers and prevent further damage is to ensure that Congress cannot outsource any aspect of its impeachment powers.
Existing opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel already hold that no sitting president should be indicted or criminally prosecuted, because such actions would debilitate the presidency. The same is true of criminal or counterintelligence investigations. Thus the OLC logic should extend those opinions and conclude formally that a sitting president cannot be investigated by the executive branch.
If the U.S. is led one day by a truly corrupt president, the proposed cure of executive-branch investigation to aid impeachment would still be far worse than the disease. A president who openly violates the law or otherwise betrays the public trust can be voted out of office or impeached by Congressusing, as the OLC has noted, its own investigative powers in an open, politically accountable way.
Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsels Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. She is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.
If the Democrats are smart they won't even try to impeach Trump.
People are sick of the dems playing games and the border is wide open. Vote the bastards out.
If the Framers could have peered into the future to see the debauched likes of Jerry Nadler, they would have burned the constitution and gone home.
When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That’s a civil war.
When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship !
Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them, and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down. That’s not a free country.
It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3753537/posts
Democrats are evil scum.
We had a truly corrupt president whose popularity was unabated by his criminal proclivities. Actually there have been several.
President Trump is scrupulous about the constitutionality of his actions. That has raised a bigger stink than the imprisonmelt of political enemies.
BTTT
Theyll have to VOTE on whatever they REALLY do
Talk is CHEAP
LEGISLATING IS HARD
The accused “witch” didn’t drown so he MUST be guilty....
Obama broke the law when he was sworn in, and he continues to break our laws 2+ years out of office.
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.