These seem to me to be fair questions
This is what Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says about impeachment and the House of Representatives:
The House of Representatives shall (choose) their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
This is what Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says about impeachment and the Senate:
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.
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.
This is what Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says about impeachment itself:
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.
Nowhere is "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" further defined.
That's it. That's everything the U.S. Constitution says about impeachment. That's the law governing the matter. Period. There is nothing else.
It seems reasonable to ask on what grounds the president intends to ask the Court, should the House vote to impeach him and put him on trial before the Senate, to declare unconstitutional or otherwise illegal something which the Constitution explicitly gives the House the power to do. Should the House do so, one might wonder on what grounds he might ask the Court to prevent the Senate from conducting such a trial, since, again, the Constitution obligates it to do exactly that.
This seems to me to be a fair question. And here's another.
Among several other things, Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Donald Trump took that oath before God and everybody on January 20, 2017. It was administered to him on national television by Chief Justice Roberts.
That being the case, it seems only fair to ask a question which has occurred to me many times in the past, both whenever the president has said things implying that it is somehow illegitimate for others to do things which the Bill of Rights guarantees them a right to do, or when he has said things suggesting a lack of understanding of the limits the Constitution places on his own powers: has Mr. Trump ever actually read the document he swore that day to "preserve, protect, and defend?"
I would grant that he might have read it in between saying during the campaign that he, personally, would "change the law" to enable himself to sue the media when it published "intentionally misleading" stories, and when he incited violence against demonstrators exercising their Constitutional rights at his campaign rallies, and the day he took the oath of office. But if he had, wouldn't he know that the House has (excuse the expression) an unimpeachable right to impeach him if a majority of its members believe him guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" sufficient to warrant it and that the Constitution places no restrictions whatsoever on what it has the right and the power to decide what such "high crimes and misdemeanors" might be?
Both of these seem to be very fair questions. So is a third one: How can conservatives, who claim to so revere the Constitution, bring themselves to support a man who at the very least seems to have no idea what's in it, and if he does, seems to so lightly regard both the Constitution itself and the oath he took to "preserve, protect, and defend" it?
Now, as I've said before, while I do not say that his antics may not, in the customary wording, "warrant impeachment, and trial, and removal from office," I think it would be better for the country if it were left to the voters to serve the eviction papers from the White House. I am confident that they will do so if the Democratic party doesn't go completely bonkers next year (which it very well may),
But can anyone seriously claim that a president so completely unfamiliar with the document he swore at his inauguration to "preserve, protect, and defend" ought to be sitting in the Oval Office, to begin with?
Comments