It is expected that the Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump will begin this week and unless I am very much mistaken, I think that it will all be over red rover, by the end of the month. Furthermore I think that owing to the make up of the 116th Congress and that two Republicans will break ranks, the results of this trial will be Not Guilty 51 - Guilty 49; which is far short of the 67 needed to actually remove the President from office.
After having read the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, as well as other correspondence from Hamilton, Jefferson, Jay, Burr, and Madison, who I suspect were actually the chief architects of the form of government which has been copied by exactly zero nations since, I have come to the conclusion that removing a President was made difficult by design. That seems like an entirely sensible thing to do if you are starting out a nation and want to ensure stability but with the passage of more than two centuries, this unchecked and indeed virtually uncheckable position has finally been occupied by someone with neither experience nor interest in actually running an executive of the nation properly.
The great American satirist Henry Louis Mencken once stated:
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
-Bayard vs. Lionheart, The Evening Sun, Baltimore (26th Jul 1920)¹
I will note however that being a mere moron is not grounds for removing a President. A higher standard than mere badness at the job is needed to unseat a President; and for this, the standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is given in the Constitution, even if there are no directions as to what those high crimes and misdemeanors are. For that, the House is allowed to do what it likes before passing it on to the Senate which is also allowed to do what it likes; seeing as the process is overtly political and being carried out inside a political institution and not a court, the result must also be invariably political, which is why it always has been and why this is no different.
I shall attempt to show this by looking at the Constitution itself; which I hope is better than mere opinion. All text will be taken from the current wording of the Constitution which is found here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html
Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Which is all well and good but this is a dependent section on what has come before.
Firstly - Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
It is highly important to stress here that the sole Power of Impeachment rests with that House of Representatives and that the direction given by the Constitution here on how they are to conduct said impeachment is exactly nil.
The House has the sole power of impeachment and there is no direction whatsoever about how they are to conduct those proceedings; about whether or not they are required to hear from witnesses; about what kind of majority that they have to have; or even the rules which they might come up with.
The House, with no direction given by the Constitution is free to do whatever it likes, whenever it likes, in the manner it likes, on the matter of the power of impeachment; with reference to nobody. President Trump's objections that he didn't get to call witnesses (which is insane because he then wouldn't have allowed whoever was going to be called to attend anyway) is not his business. The sole power of impeachment rests with the House of Representatives. Story. End of. No returns.
However, just because the House has that power of impeachment, once it passes on the results of those impeachment proceedings, the ball leaves its court forever and passes to the Senate. This is where we are now.
To that end Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
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.
Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Just like the power of impeachment in the House which has no direction given by the Constitution, the power to try all impeachments which rests in the Senate, also has no direction given by the Constitution. Just like the House, the Senate is free to do whatever it likes, whenever it likes, in the manner it likes, on the matter of the trying an impeachment.
Although the Constitution says that the Chief Justice "shall preside" over the Senate trial of a president, really all his job is is to be a directions manager.
It is the Senate who makes the rules and ultimately they have first and last word and every other word in between. If the Senate wanted to, they could by vote, by ballot, or even by yell down, overturn anything and everything that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to say. They can ignore any and all of his rulings; which effectively means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in an impeachment trial in the Senate, is completely powerless, irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. Chief Justice William Rehnquist found that out, right at the beginning of President Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial in 1999. He couldn't plan the calendar; nor the break times; nor could raise any objections to Ms Lewinsky being interviewed on video tape which was then presented to the Senate. Chief Justice William Rehnquist had no judicial power whatsoever; which given the words of the Constitution, must have been entirely as expected.
All of this means to say that whatever Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell decides to do at this point; which may involve hearing witnesses or not, or quietly burying the whole thing, or not allowing cross examination, or even not allowing a proper defence and prosecution to run opposing cases and/or counsel, is perfectly fine and allowable if that's what the Senate decides.
The Senate as a collective is not an impartial jury like a normal court case; nor is it instructed or directed by the Constitution to be so. The Senate is more like the Referee in a football match who is not only the sole arbiter of the game but also the sole arbiter of time according to the rules². Just like a football referee could be playing Candy Crush on their phone and not even remotely paying attention to the game around them, then making completely arbitrary decisions based upon fads and fancies, whims and whimsy, or just sheer spite, there is not even a requirement imposed on the Senate to try the case fairly. If that sounds bonkers mental hat-stand insane, that's because it is.
For this reason, I think that Mitch McConnell has no intent on running a fair trial. Running a fair trial would on the face of it, need to have the Senate come to the conclusion that the President is guilty. Mr Trump will not get a fair trial but rather a trial which is observed by trial judge (the Senate as a collective) which is being very partial; with the intent of keeping him in the office.
¹https://www.newspapers.com/clip/21831908/hl_mencken_article_26_jul_1920_the/
²http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-5---the-referee
No comments:
Post a Comment