Confused about Impeachment and subsequent Trial [View all]
The latest news I read (or glanced at headlines only) concerned the discussion and vote on the two Articles of Impeachment to impeach our President. I learned that Republicans still have their heads in the sand with a consequential deprivation of oxygen and resultant incapacity to grasp reality. They were reported by the "Hill" to have opened today's session in the House with a motion for adjournment, apparently in an attempt to delay the discussion and vote on the Articles of Impeachment to come before the House.
I seem to recall reading that Sen. McConnell had also denied Sen. Chuck Schumer's request to present witnesses. I have not read how Mr. McConnell proposes to run the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, but here are this writer's five pennies worth on impeachment. Remember, these are hypothetical, philosophical observations, just something to think about, any criticism, corrections or observations on the subject will be appreciated.
The last two paragraphs of Article I, Section 3 of our United States Constitution deals with constitutional requirements for the trial of an impeached official to determine whether he or she should be removed from office. 1. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. 2. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. 3. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and 4. no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Those are the requirements for the trial of impeachment.
The last paragraph of that Section 3 establishes Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party shall nevertheless be liable to proceedings according to the law (paraphrased). So far the premises for my Post.
The Problem: Why is Mitch McConnell making rules for the trial (in his case "Non-Trial"
when our Constitution clearly sets forth that when a president is tried according to the impeachment process, it is not a criminal trial, but it is nevertheless a legal trial of highest importance to require the Chief Justice to preside over the trial. It was the Chief Justice who administered the Oath of Office to the President, without which he could not have become President, even had he won the election by an overwhelming majority: let us never forget that. That's how ethics were a little over two hundred years ago. The impeachment in the House is like an indictment. The actual trial is a trial on the facts to be presented to the Senate.
Significantly, the Constitution requires that when the Senate sits for the purpose of an impeachment trial, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. Clearly all Senators have already taken an oath or made an affirmation to support the Constitution. Therefore, this is a different oath. I don't know what oath the Chief Justice requires, but should they not swear an oath that they will look at the facts to be presented, and regardless of party affiliation, decide truthfully whether or not the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor to require removal from Office. These Senators become the decision makers on the facts presented (like a jury) while the Chief Justice makes decisions as to the law and proper trial procedures.
Would it not be proper for the Chief Justice to have polled each and every Member of the Senate whether they can render such an unbiased decision on the facts and exclude those who under oath say that they cannot do that? There are at least two Senators who have already publicly proclaimed that they cannot convict the President. Should they not be excluded from voting?
Don't say "Nonsense" to those questions. Our Constitution demands "no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Is it not implicit in that requirement that not all Members of the Senate were expected to participate in the trial for removal from Office? When the framers of the Constitution required that the Senators at the trial be "on Oath or Affirmation" did they not mean that if one cannot cast away party politics for the duration of the trial he or she should not be part of the two thirds of the Members present to decide on conviction?
With all this I don't even know what happened in Washington today. So, what are your thoughts on this?
= new reply since forum marked as read