Comments

You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump

2021-01-24

[Powerline] Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of "the President." Trump is no longer "the President." Roberts’s presence is therefore not called for.

Trump is of course a private citizen at this point. The constitutional text does not appear to contemplate the impeachment or trial of a private citizen, although such impeachments took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth. Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.

Judge Luttig argues: "Once Trump's term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him‐even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment." The Constitution's impeachment clauses presuppose that impeachment and removal of a president happen while in office.

As an example, Judge Luttig cites Article II, Section 4: "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."

He also cites Article I, Section 3, which reads in part: "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."

Note that "removal" accompanies "disqualification." If a private citizen can no longer be removed, can he simply be disqualified? Perhaps, but disqualification is conjoined with removal.

Judge Luttig concedes that some scholars argue that Congress can impeach a former president from two instances in which early Congresses impeached "civil officials" after they had resigned their public offices ‐ the impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. He further concedes that these cases "provide some backing for the argument that Congress can conclude that it has the power under the Constitution to impeach a former president." Please note that the case of William Blount ‐ summarized here by the Senate ‐ is ambiguous at best in relevant respects. (Alan Dershowitz rightly ignores it in his column quoted below.)

Posted by:Frank G

#7 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: Besoeker 2021-01-24 22:18

#6 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: Frank G 2021-01-24 21:54

#5 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: European Conservative 2021-01-24 19:17

#4 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: CrazyFool 2021-01-24 18:55

#3 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: Deadeye Jaiting7534 2021-01-24 18:19

#2 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: Clem 2021-01-24 11:33

#1 comments); ?>werwer

Posted by: Raj 2021-01-24 11:09

00:00