On impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution
The Constitution is presently used by both major political parties defending or opposing the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. Both argue their loyalty to it.
It reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5). The people place a president in power, and their representatives — the House — alone initiates and formulates the charges for his possible removal. The “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” So one indicts, the other tries.
Simple enough.
But formulating the charges does require a favorable vote of the full House — not just a committee.
Therein lies the rub.
The House Intelligence Committee charged with finding a crime hasn’t yet found bribery, treason, or any high crime — the only impeachable offenses — but it “knows” one exists somewhere. During three years of a dozen or more attempts to impeach Trump, charges crumbled from lack of documentation.
Probably the most profound statement made regarding impeachment was made by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, presently engaged in impeaching Trump: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions” (144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998).
This Nadler argued during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.
Using Nadler’s criteria, Donald Trump does not pose a “dire threat” to our system of government or constitutional liberties, there is no “overwhelming consensus,” and only the Democratic Party is working for his removal. Most Americans oppose impeachment.
The Constitution gives the House the sole power to create the charges against a president. Additional authority is housed under past practice, which in time effectively adds to the Constitution unless found to conflict with an original part of the document.
Only Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton have been indicted. House past practice in each has been based upon fairness. In each, a vote of the full House was required to initiate an impeachment inquiry. For Nixon the vote was 410–4, and for Clinton 258–176 (See H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. 1974 and H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. 1998). The full House participated in defining the scope of impeachment and established its rules and procedure. After the vote was taken to form an impeachment inquiry, both the chair of the inquiring committee and the ranking member of the opposing party had co-equal subpoena powers to call witnesses subject to a vote of the full committee upon the request of either.
The indicted president’s council participated. It exercised the right to attend all hearings and depositions, to present evidence, to object to the admittance of evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to recommend a witness list.
Thus far, Nancy Pelosi has opposed a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry as was established in previous impeachments, nor has the full House been given input in “defining the scope, rules and procedures” as before. The Committee Report accompanying H. Res. 581 developed in the Clinton impeachment stated: “The full House of representatives should be involved in critical decision making regarding various stages of impeachment.”
One serious constitutional provision yet remains in our consideration of the attempt to impeach Trump: due process.
This is housed in several places in the Constitution — especially Amendments 5, 6, and 14. Democrat Jerrold Nadler referenced them when Bill Clinton was impeached: “The power of impeachment demands a rigorous level of due process … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses and to have the assistance of counsel” (hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary 105th Cong. 17, 1998). These have not been extended to Trump.
As Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President White House, wrote on Oct. 8, “These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations … [even] impeachment proceedings.”
Thus far, none of the above established practices have been followed in the case of the proposed impeachment of President Trump, especially due process. No House vote and no formation of an impeachment inquiry committee after the vote. Pelosi simply asked the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff, to assume the responsibilities, and he is behaving as though his committee will do it alone, including the trial constitutionally reserved to the U.S. Senate.
Moreover, Schiff has been holding secret hearings of witnesses denying House Republican observers of other committees. He forcibly removed colleague Matt Gaetez.
Clearly, respecting impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “On impeachment, Democrats are sloppy with the Constitution”
Poll: If President Trump should be impeached, why has the House STILL not voted on it?
Ok, 1st off, last comment for at least a little while. Well written and concise article. See comment I made attached to Harrold’s previous highschool Civics opinion piece from the previous week. OK here goes nothing. I WOULD LOOK INTO SCHIFF’S EYES, and channel DIRTY HARRY of the 1970s ,,,, Do you feel lucky punk? Go ahead pick that Constitution apart, because you will MAKE MY DAY and insure NONE OF YOUR SUB PAR LEADING CANDIDATES WILL MAKE IT TO THE WHITEHOUSE. Yup. Getting too late for Cuban to enter even as an Independent, Gabbard is Hawaiian girl BAD, Biden is too old to Rock&Roll, and Warren has way too much baggage as well as serious serious credibility issues. Yep feel the heart Bern is also not going to cut it as a socialist President either, but he could still be sabotaged internally by his own party like last time. Stay tuned folks.So what do you do? Punt, says a young Clint Eastwood, as he cracks open a beer in a rundown 70s SF apartment. 4th down. What will CNN do next? Stay tuned, or toon in, turn on, and watch the show, it’s a dynamo, it’s rock and roll – Brain Salad Surgery, BE CAREFUL AS YOU PASS MOVE ALONG MOVE ALONG. Come inside the shows about to start. Ed, just saying. No harm or foul, but music seems my deFAULT these days to make a point.
Your drivel is almost as bad as this nutcase Harold.
No worry. Trump is toast. Let us know when you bring yourself to accept it.
Drivel ! Love that word. Ok my response is simply “Nutts” as in Battle of the Bulge… I could care less who wins the election as long as it is not a Socialist, Communist, or Facist individual. If Mark Cuban decided to run, I could possibly vote for him whether he did so as an Independent, Republican, or Democrat. No Hazel, you failed to read the previous post I made, which is referenced clearly above . I stand for 1 thing, the survival and protection of the Constitution. I dont want socialism either, as it would destroy Anerica as we know it. I could vote for Gaby too, but oh my gosh, she was never given a chance. Don, Anderson, and team decided that for YOUR party. Look, your response is clearly that of an NPC, not to be insulting. Go back, read my other post then comment again. It is so clear, that you think this is a game or battle of words. Whether It is ED, HARROLD, or JASON G. I am an equal opportunity responder. There are two basic types of Americans: Soviet Americans and Americans. Choose your character well, and then Pinocchiolina you will become a real women, not an NPC that reacts to the surface of words clearly not understood. Good luck, up to you to do your homework and wish upon a star. KEEP LOVE REAL. ❣ Learn.
PS. Further NPC responses will be ignored. Not worth the time, as NPCs are part of the problem whether Left, Right, Indignant, or just Trolls having fun.
Oh forgot Hazel Eyes, see my comment to the Matt Lauer opinion piece. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. Hey feedback wOuld be appreciated. PS J.G. / J.W. signing off for a long deserved hiatus.