Dershowitz says it is unconstitutional. The impeachment process was intended to remove sitting office holders. There was a case in 1876 when the former Secretary of War was tried by the Senate. He was not convicted. The criminal justice system is where private citizens are held accountable.
Senator Cotton agrees with Dershowitz that there should be no trial. Trump team will file a motion with the courts to prevent the trial. SCOTUS will decide. Most legal experts say Trump will win his court challenge.
I think the purpose if impeachment is to protect government of, by, and for the people from infection by identifying and accusing bad people who either are in positions of high public trust, or were in such positions, and while there, showed that they were willing to abuse that trust. Some such bad people are current office holders. Some were in office but are no longer in government. In the former case, a Senate trial leading to a conviction both takes the convicted person out of office and prevents them from ever going back in. In the latter case, the latter consequence only is visited on the former officeholder in question, which is no minor consequence, and probably easily justifiable in many different situations, just not with Trump.
They can not take the second vote banning him from future office with out taking the first vote.
The bottom line is that there is no clear answer. This issue has been the subject of dispute since the very first impeachment in 1797. Then, the Senate voted 14-11 to dismiss the articles of impeachment of Senator William Blount for lack of jurisdiction, although it was not clear whether this was because Blount had already been expelled from the Senate or because Senators are not officers subject to impeachment in the first place.
The Senate has claimed jurisdiction to try former officers more than once, and actually did try one, William Belknap, in 1876. Belknap was acquitted, and no other former officer has ever been convicted or, I believe, even tried to a verdict. The Senate’s jurisdiction to do so has usually been challenged, but not in court: with no convictions, no one has had standing or a reason to challenge the Senate’s jurisdiction in court.
So the answer to your question is in dispute. And it probably will not be resolved this time, because I doubt there are enough votes in the Senate to convict.
The Dems stole the Election, which makes everything they do illegal...including impeachment.
Almost everything you read about this is wrong... most of it put up by people who don’t know, who have never studied it, but have an opinion driven by how the heat of the moment influences their concern.
The Constitution empowers the Congress to impeach government officials.
The Constitution, quite wrongly today, assumes good faith and good judgement will constrain excess.
Presidents, once they are out of office, remain subject to that rule, and may be impeached, as they remain in offices of trust. They continue to be paid. They continue to be provided unique access to information. A security clearance is a foothold inside the process... but also a point of attachment to it ? As a former commander in chief, Presidents are not that different than other members of the military who, as officers, upon leaving service, remain as commissioned officers who are still subject to recall in the event of urgent need, while inactive. It’s not just a job.
The attendant risks are easily enough avoidable, though... if you choose to voluntarily relinquish those sorts of attachments. They can’t hold you to an obligation against your will... after you’ve already surrendered it.
However, once Trump is out of office, the whole point, from Democrats point of view... is that an impeachment provides a set of remedies that extends to denying him the right to ever fill public office, again. And, that’s why they’re doing it... hoping to prevent Trump running again in 2024.
But, they’d still need cooperation from Senate Republicans to make that happen... it requiring a separate vote on imposing that penalty in addition to voting to convict un the impeachment first. Odds of that happening, pretty close to zero... going negative and inverting over time, perhaps ?
Along the way, of course, they’ll hope that conducting a witch hunt impeachment, again, would provide them with some fodder to funnel to federal, state and local courts... in order to sustain their witch hunt in other venue in future.
That it’s obvious as a horribly bad idea isn’t a restraint on Democrats right now... apparent even just given a look at the range of horribly bad legislation already being tabled. They’re already seeking to conduct purges of political opposition throughout government, including converting the FBI and the DOJ into their own SS and Gestapo... while elevating Antifa/BLM to above the law, and declaring anyone who opposes them to be a terrorist:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3925167/posts
The senate is hardly going to be in existence in a few weeks much less trying anyone. You are still watching TV. Stop it!
It won’t happen. President Trump did not resign for the purpose of evading conviction, so the Senate won’t try him after the end of his term.
There is another aspect to a post service impeachment: it would extend to ALL former civil servants.
The Clintons. Eric Holder. GW. Colon Powell.
So they aren’t opening this can of worms.
But they want us distressed and distracted. On defense rather than recall petitions and scandal research.
The senate plans to try Trump as a private citizen. Is this even legal/Constitutional?
Yes, legal, constitutional. It has been done before. Impeachments are not subject to judicial review. If Congress has the votes, they can do pretty much as they please. Legaly, a Presidential impeachment is no different than that of other officials.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm
[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 27. Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office][...]
The "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States'' are subject to removal under the impeachment clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 4. A private citizen who has held no public office may not be impeached. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2007, 2315.
[...]
Impeachment proceedings were initiated against a Member of the President's Cabinet in 1876, when impeachment charges were filed against William W. Belknap, who had been Secretary of War. The House and Senate debated the power of impeachment at length and determined that the Secretary remained amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation.
[...]
Effect of Resignation
The House and Senate have the power to impeach and try an accused official who has resigned. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 2. It was conceded (in the Belknap impeachment proceeding described above) that a Cabinet Secretary remains amenable to impeachment and trial even after his resignation. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2317, 2318. As a practical matter, however, the resignation of an official about to be impeached generally puts an end to impeachment proceedings because the primary objective--removal from office--has been accomplished. This was the case in the impeachment proceedings begun against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and Judge George English in 1926. Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2. President Nixon resigned following the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House recommending his impeachment, and further proceedings were discontinued. 93-2, H. Rept. 93-1305, p 29361. Judge English resigned before commencement of trial by the Senate and the proceedings were discontinued at that point. 6 Cannon Sec. 547. Judge Delahay (1873) and Judge Kent (2009) likewise resigned prior to Senate proceedings.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3.pdf
3 Hind's Precedents Sec. 2007; pp. 320-21 (full section spans pp. 310-21)
On May 29 the Presiding Officer announced that the proposition pending was that offered by Mr. Morton on the 16th instant. Thereupon Mr. Morton modified his proposition to read as follows:Resolved, That the power of impeachment created by the Constitution does not extend to a person who is charged with the commission of a high crime while he was a civil officer of the United States and acting in his official character, but who had ceased to be such officer before the finding of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives.Mr. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word ‘‘resolved,'' in the first line, and in lieu thereof inserting:
That the demurrer of the respondent to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea of the respondent be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the plea of the respondent to the jurisdiction of the Senate be, and the same is hereby, overruled; and that the articles of impeachment are sufficient to show that the Senate has jurisdiction of the case, and that the respondent answer to the merits of the accusation contained in the articles of impeachment.Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy, of Michigan, moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, by striking out all after the word "that'' in the first line thereof, and inserting:
W. W. Belknap, the respondent, is not amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, he having resigned said office before impeachment.Mr. George G. Wright, of Iowa, moved to lay the resolution of Mr. Morton on the table, and this motion was agreed to, yeas 36, nays 30.
Thereupon Mr. Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, proposed a resolution, which was in this form, after the words "before he was impeached'' had been added on motion of Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York:
Resolved, That in the opinion of the Senate William W. Belknap, the respondent, is amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.Mr. Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska, moved to amend the said resolution by striking out all after the word "resolved'' and in lieu thereof inserting:
That William W. Belknap, late Secretary of Wax, (as in original, should be "War") having ceased to be a civil officer of the United States by reason of his resignation before proceedings in impeachment were commenced against him by the House of Representatives, the Senate can not take jurisdiction in this case.This amendment was disagreed to, yeas 29, nays 37.
Then the resolution was agreed to, yeas 37, nays 29.
Mr. Thurman also presented a further resolution, which, after amendment at the suggestion of Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware, was agreed to by a vote of 35 yeas, 22 nays:
Resolved, That at the time specified in the foregoing resolution [June 1 was fixed by a separate resolution] the President of the Senate shall pronounce the judgment of the Senate as follows: "It is ordered by the Senate sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment preferred by the House of Representatives against William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, that the demurrer of said William W. Belknap to the replication of the House of Representatives to the plea to the jurisdiction filed by said Belknap be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and, it being the opinion of the Senate that said plea is insufficient in law and that said articles of impeachment are sufficient in law, it is therefore further ordered and adjudged that said plea be, and the same hereby is, overruled and held for naught;'' which judgment thus pronounced shall be entered upon the Journal of the Senate sitting as aforesaid.In the final arguments Messrs. Montgomery Blair and Matthew H. Carpenter also argued this question.