4
0

Once Trump leaves office, the Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial


 invite response                
2021 Jan 13, 6:59pm   366 views  12 comments

by Eric Holder   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

Opinion by J. Michael Luttig
Jan. 12, 2021 at 2:42 p.m. PST

J. Michael Luttig served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.

It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional.

On Sunday, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that, while House Democrats would take up articles of impeachment this week against President Trump, the House might delay sending to the Senate any articles passed by the House until after President-elect Biden’s first 100 days in office. Biden proposed an alternative, under which the new Senate would immediately begin working on his legislative agenda and confirming his Cabinet appointments in the mornings and conduct the impeachment trial in the afternoon.

The sequencing of the House impeachment proceedings before Trump’s departure from office and the inauguration of the new president, followed by a Senate impeachment trial, perhaps months later, raises the question of whether a former president can be impeached after he leaves office.

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. 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.

Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.

The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.

The purpose, text and structure of the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses confirm this intuitive and common-sense understanding.

The very concept of constitutional impeachment presupposes the impeachment, conviction and removal of a president who is, at the time of his impeachment, an incumbent in the office from which he is removed. Indeed, that was the purpose of the impeachment power, to remove from office a president or other “civil official” before he could further harm the nation from the office he then occupies.

The plain text of the Constitution’s several Impeachment Clauses confirms this understanding of this limit on Congress’ impeachment power. For example, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “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.” In the same constitutional vein, Article I, Section 3 provides in relevant 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.”

It has been suggested that the Senate could proceed to try the former president and convict him in an effort to disqualify him from holding public office in the future. This is incorrect because it is a constitutional impeachment of a president that authorizes his constitutional disqualification. If a president has not been constitutionally impeached, then the Senate is without the constitutional power to disqualify him from future office.

Some constitutional scholars take support for their view that the 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.

These congressional impeachment cases provide some backing for the argument that Congress can conclude that it has the power under the Constitution to impeach a former president. And Congress’s understanding of its constitutional powers would be a weighty consideration in the ultimate determination whether the Congress does possess such authority. When and if the former president goes to court to challenge his impeachment trial as unconstitutional, Congress is sure to make its argument based on these congressional precedents, as well as others, a case that would almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court.

In the end, though, only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can impeach a president who has left office prior to its attempted impeachment of him. It is highly unlikely the Supreme Court would yield to Congress’s view that it has the power to impeach a president who is no longer in office when the Constitution itself is so clear that it does not.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

Comments 1 - 12 of 12        Search these comments

1   Ceffer   2021 Jan 13, 7:07pm  

Eric Holder says
Once Trump leaves office, the Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial


LOL! Another indicator that Trump is going to continue in office!
2   Onvacation   2021 Jan 13, 9:36pm  

This charge is more ridiculous than the last one.

Although he was guilty of obstructing congress and we were all better off for it.
3   MisdemeanorRebel   2021 Jan 13, 9:39pm  

This time, they only heard hearsay evidence about "Q Codewords". No witnesses, no physical evidence. They didn't even create a process for hearing and questioning witnesses and evidence.

Liz Cheney was extremely helpful in all of this. Her "Principles" require her as GOP Chair in the House to allow a process that doesn't include ANY witnesses and only hearsay to continue.

I know you're all shocked to the bone that a Cheney is helping the Democrats railroad Trump.
4   porkchopXpress   2021 Jan 13, 9:40pm  

Or was the impeachment sham done in case Trump DOES continue in office and then they try to remove him. It's a weapon in their arsenal if needed. In that case, whoever Trump picks for VP going forward is critical...not Pence. Perhaps Pompeo, who has been on a Tweet spree lately.
5   ThatGuy   2021 Jan 13, 9:41pm  

If he gets re-elected, could they continue with the trial?
6   porkchopXpress   2021 Jan 13, 9:41pm  

ThatGuy says
If he gets re-elected, could they continue with the trial?
I'm guessing the answer is yes.
9   RWSGFY   2021 Jan 14, 6:00am  

Patrick says



This is for the same "crime" Trump was impeached the first time. Now we need articles of impeachment against Kamela for the same crime they impeached Trump the second time - inciting riots. The evidence is plenty.
10   stfu   2021 Jan 14, 6:06am  

If this year has taught me anything it's that it really doesn't matter what the 'constitution says'.
11   Booger   2021 Jan 17, 7:23pm  

https://archive.vn/99TO6

Giuliani Files Impeachment Papers For Pelosi on Behalf of the White House
12   MisdemeanorRebel   2021 Jan 17, 8:30pm  

Yeah, with the New Woke Governance Attitude, wouldn't be surprised if they decide you can now impeach people from a seat they don't hold. And Roberts rejects the appeal.

Booger says
https://archive.vn/99TO6


More typical millennial Comm Major writing: The piece opens by saying Giuliani is one of the greatest legal minds, and concludes by saying the other side doesn't know how the law works. When the article was written by a lukewarm IQ Simmons graduate who never read any legal filing or had any legal training herself.

Has anybody noticed all the 30-year old chick "Science Writers" who clearly don't know jack shit about basic science, esp. Physics? Love when they write about hydrogen economy and other such shit.

Sorry to sound like an old man, but yes earlier there were fakers, but there was also a storm of letters to the editor when readers realized the author had no fucking clue, and after a few 1000 of them, the editors had the balls to fire them.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions