p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"As soon as Donald Trump was elected president, people started chanting "not my president," and begin to physically assault one another because of their disagreements. This took the form of protests gone violent and supporters of the new president who joined in the fray. Even before the election and definitely after Trump ascendancy to president groups of people contemplated impeachment, which was very much based on party lines. As much as the passions run high in this country due to the dislike of the presidency, Impeachment isn't about approval or partisanship. I shall explore in this essay, why even if democrats would take control of congress, conviction would be not likely, even if articles of impeachment could surface./p
p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanTo start us off in thinking about impeachments Joshua Matz and Laurence Tribe warns us that we have to have a rational span class="s1"cool and evenhandedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanreflection, informed by the Constitution and lessons fromspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanhistory. It also requires nuance, rather thanspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanabsolutes, and the capacity to look beyond reflexivespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpartisan loyalties" (xii). /spanThe constitution has to say this about impeachment. "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." U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 4, Clause 1. Simply the constitution gives the United States and the citizenry the power to remove and rid ourselves of a badly performing leader. It is a peaceable and according to Barbara Radnofsky in A Citizen's Guide To Impeachment, she states that it is "a noncriminal, orderly process—not "tumults and insurrections"2—to deal with the "misconduct of public men." (3). This is a safe way to deal with offenses that is committed by public men. It is much safer than a riot, uprising, or a rebellion or much of what inspired the constitutional convention. They lived under the confederacy which due to rebellions and uprising almost ruined the nation. This was a convention to fix the confederacy, just that instead a new form of government evolved from this runaway convention. Also the framers thought about how most disliked leaders was dealt with in history, precisely because they didn't have other recourses. When there is no other good method provided by the law according to Matz and Tribe "span class="s1"warned Benjamin Franklin, then the only recoursespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanfor abuse of power will be assassination" (xxi)span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanAssassinations isn't a great remedy. It's a rather tragic and very unfortunate solution that doesn't do anyone any good nor justice. According to Matz and Tribe this is so tragic because things are disastrous when they simply "land a singlespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanblow and the world is instantly, unexpectedlyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spantransformed. They have only one tool-death-and theyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanwield it at risk of their own life" (24). Who will be the next leader? Power abhors a vacuum, what happens to the unstable nation? Who's going to heal the nation. As our nation knows we do have a solution, but we have had to assassinations and healing from those are difficult. There was more agreement within the framers according to tribe and Matz as they pointed out "Randolph, forspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanexample, echoed Franklin's concern about domestic strife: "Should no regular punishment be provided,span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanit will be irregularly inflicted by tumultsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spaninsurrections" (6). Also as Americans who lived through the colonial period they themselves learnt from being under an oppressive government. They lived under a unjust and oppressive ruler. In fact the reason they declared independence was because King George III was so unfair and did not represent them. In fact this Declaration of independence that they wrote up, signed, and sent over to England at their own great peril according to Matz and Tribe which was a "bill ofspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanparticulars against King George III modeledspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanwhat we'd now view as articles of impeachment." (7). So this Impeachment Power clause is there according to Radnofsky because "/spanIn the Unitedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanStates, impeachment is a constitutional process by which Congress can remove high officials, including the president, the vice president, federal judges, and cabinet members, from office." (3), precisely because the founding fathers thought through it, and came up with this moderate and fair way to rid themselves of such a leader. The impeachment power was a bit of a way to cause symbolic death in the minds of the public, instead of a physical assassination. According to Matz and tribe this impeachment power would "span class="s1"allow "We the People" to inflict political death-butspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spannothing more-on tyrannical leaders who posed aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spangrave threat to the Republic" therefore, not physically harming others, but removing these men from being seen governing and causing harm to society. They had no original safeguard, really. Checking and balancing just doesn't help, election does not either, ETC…. However, it was brought up. According to Matz and Tribe "the Framers startedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto worry. They were creating a powerful chiefspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanexecutive to preside over a powerful federalspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spangovernment. Despite all the safeguards they hadspan class="Apple-converted-space" /span/span/p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanlayered in the Constitution, including thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanElectoral College, evil or incompetentspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanleaders might someday hold that position" (1-2)./p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="s1"span class="Apple-converted-space" /span/spanThe reason they did it this way was not random. They had an historical example to follow. And build off of. they knew how to implement it because of previous English practice. They knew how to write the declaration of independence because of previous experience. Impeachment was an old English practice, which is not really as used in England. However, the practice has been used a few times, and the theory originates from there. The colonist was well clued in about this practice and tradition. The colonists was well read and well educated in general, but even on impeachments, "the colonials kept their libraries well stocked with books on British impeachment." (7). They were not just well read on the theory but also very well practiced. As mentioned the Declaration of independence was very much like bills of impeachment, and I don't know if that's n coincidence. According to Radnofsky "The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War had a clear sense of the dangers of—and how to combat—a tyrannical, badly functioning, negligent, or incapacitated official in power"The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War had a clear sense of the dangers of—and how to combat—a tyrannical, badly functioning, negligent, or incapacitated official in power" (3). This means they had practice, a lot of practice too. Impeachment was limited in England and especially by the crown of England. It was also not as used and used in a slightly different way mostly due to the King. However the colonists who had not too much of a say in English politics, not as much to do with king George III saw it differently. According to Tribe and Matz "span class="s1"many colonists had comespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto view the impeachment power as a birthright" (3). They impeached many people, and was very enthusiastic about it. It was there only say in some regards, and there way to throw off objectionable officials. They did it probably a bit too freely, according to Matz and tribe, "somespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanlegislatures refused to stop impeaching even whenspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanordered to stand down by panicked royal councilors" (3). Thus, this Impeachment power is actually according to Radnofsky "/spana sophisticated understanding of British history, law, and terminology adapted for use in American impeachment proceedings"/p
p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanJames Wilson of Pennsylvania according to Radnofsky claims that the impeachment clause is necessary because , "'Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes'" This is what the impeachment clause is originally intended for. This type of behavior which will adversely effect trust in public officials. As discussed it's a symbolic death not a physical death. "furthermore, the framers clarified what can result in such an impeachment proceeding. "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" U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 7. " So, this is not a court in terms of determining crime. This court is in the political realm so therefore as according to William H. Rehnquist in his book Grand inquests states"but impeachment as provided for in the Constitution can never be wholly divorced from politics" This means that such a process of impeachment and holding a impeachment "trial" does according to Radnofsky "not require the Senate to conduct a judicial-style trial"(20). In fact even after impeaching this officer or in some cases before the impeachment trial according to the constitution of the United States "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law"U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 7. According to Radnofsky impeachments has "no loss of liberty is at stake, and the accused is not subject to criminal penalties, double jeopardy does not apply to impeachment" (20). Hamilton agrees in federalist number 65, "the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender" Therefore High crime and misdemeanors is not criminal type of terminology. As Matz and Tribe explainsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';""span class="s1"In thinking about what types of offenses those mightspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanbe, it's useful to invoke ejusdem generis" (38), which means one must look at the context and determine from a list what that catch all phrase would mean. According to Radnofsky High crimes and Misdemeanors is not anything but /span(legally, a "term of art") that bears no resemblance to what we know as "crimes" or "misdemeanors" today" (4). Mostly what people use for high crimes and misdemeanors fit well with this definition. Also according to Radnofsky, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors' refers to misconduct that damages the state and the operations of governmental institutions" (21). Hamilton of the founding fathers agrees with this and clarifies in Federalist Paper 65 "with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society" (417. This process is therefore by and large political. Also it would be dangerous to list all and any offenses because it would not possibly cover all of the things that may come up as impeachable. According to matz and Tribe choosing "span class="s1"an open-endedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanterm that would allow Congress to impeach for manyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanimaginable-and not yet imaginable-"great and dangerousspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanoffences" (38). Another good reason on not really havingspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanlist is because according to Matz and Tribe, "given that the Impeachmentspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanClause applies not only to the president andspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanfederal judges, but also to many other seniorspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanexecutive branch" (27). It would be hard to gather all of them or predict them because so many things could be done to be class="Apple-converted-space" /spanofficials" (Furthermore,To only have treason and bribery would be too narrow. Generally through history and through studying of Impeachment case law according to radnofsky "/spanCongress has repeatedly defined "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" to be serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily indictable under criminal laws" (25). span class="s1"Radnofsky has given us some examples of to what can be conduct you can impeach for in several places these are as follows: "/spanbetrayal of trust, neglect of duty, acting grossly contrary to the duty of his office to carry out oath of office, or obtaining "exorbitant grants or incompatible employments." (23); And "not to abuse his powers or transgress their lim-its—not to violate the rights of citizens such as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which the Constitution vests in him alone, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere in the Constitution" (25); "Acting to defeat claims of the United States" (29); "responsibility for wrongful firing if merit of the fired person justifies retention, Conflicts of interest; pecuniary inducement, Corruption in elections, Corruption: in relationships; patterns of behavior, corrupt financial relationship at time of nomination or while office holder, Fraud unrelated to duties of office (in tax filings) (in bankruptcy filings, Ignorance: ("too ignorant to perform duties, Lying, perfidy (faithlessness), treachery, disloyalty, deceits, violation of a promise or vow; obstruction ofjustice, perjury or subornation of perjury; self-dealing; depriving the public of right to honest services of the office; corruption of judicial process; bringing administration ofjustice into disrepute;' conduct harming the public respect and confidence; undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice, Misconduct in "matters outside official duties"; Revealing confidential information (wiretap, Unworthy conduct; Violating oath of office and duties; failure to provide Senate "every material intelligence he receives"; giving false information to the Senate; concealing important intelligence that the officer ought to have communicated; failure to provide information in nomination process, Violating court order" (30). Keep this in mind. The impeachment power is not a official duty or responsibility. According to Matz and Tribe "span class="s1"The House ofspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanRepresentatives holds the power to impeach, not thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanduty to do so" (xvii). In other words it's not a must to impeach a official but it is an option. The senate also is not obligated to vote for a conviction according to Matz and Tribe "senators, inspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanturn, are free to vote against conviction even if theyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthink the president is guilty as charged" (70). In fact as Tribe and Matz states that if the impeachment power werespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanactually an impeachment duty -then legislatorsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanhave broken their oaths countless times."(71), but fortunately they have not, and this is not the class="Apple-converted-space" /span/span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="s1"In contrast inadequate reasons to impeach a president according to Matz and Tribe "Presidents can't be removed from office on thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spansole basis of poor judgment, generalspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spaninadequacy, perceived incapacity, or strongspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpolicy disagreements. As to who can be impeached according to Radnofsky "/spanThe Congressional Research Service bookends the issue by suggesting that any official who is a principal officer—such as a head of an agency, an administrator, or a commissioner—is likely impeachable. A lower-level executive-branch worker—such as a federal employee in the civil service, with no presidential appointment or significant authority—may not be impeachable." (20). In other words it has to be a federal official of significantly high office and not a street level bureaucrat, excluding the legislative branch. State officials can not be impeached under the U.S. Constitution. They are impeachable by the individual state constitution. The United States constitution states this about the legislative branch, "Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Members" U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 5, Clause 2. This means that there is no impeaching of any legislative branch officials. To deal with those issues, you expel them./p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanAccording to the constitution of the united states "The house of representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5. This means that the house is given authority by this constitution to bring any articles of impeachment. According to Matz and Tribe "span class="s1"Simply put, Congress has the first and finalspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanword on matters of impeachment. The Constitutionspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancouldn't be clearer about who decides" (112). The courts do not get a say. According to Radnofsky "/spannoted that not "a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention . . . even alludes to the possibility of judicial review" (20). span class="Apple-converted-space" /span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"Usually after a law is passed the Supreme Court gets to take a look at it and if it's not constitutional it gets to strike it down. span class="s1"The supreme court is definitely not the one trying impeachments especially presidential ones. Presidents can appoint some of these judges. And, this is precisely what happened with nixon. According to Matz and Tribe, 'if Nixon'sspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanappointees had been in a position to control hisspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanactual impeachment rather than a case about accessspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto evidence. Many of us would view that situation asspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanintolerable and potentially illegitimate./span/p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanNext consider a variation on the samespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanWatergate theme: What if Nixon had beenspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanremoved from office, Gerald Ford had refusedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto pardon him, and Nixon was then convicted of federalspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancrimes? This hypothetical exemplifies aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spansecond reason for the Framers' skepticism of thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanCourt: it might later sit in judgment of thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpresident in an appeal arising from the conduct that gotspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanhim impeached" (122/p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';")./p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanAccording to Matz and tribe "There are many ways to initiate an impeachment. Forspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanexample, the House may choose to act on aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancitizen petition, a grand jury charge, or thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanrequest of a state legislature. In the latespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spantwentieth century, federal law also permitted thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanappointment of an "independent counsel" whosespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanauthority included impeachment referrals to thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanHouse" (128). Any one of these can inroaduce a billl of impeachment. So this would start the bill's long winding road through the house, and what an interesting one. What you are asking this body to do is interesting. Matz and tribe brings an interesting point up. We talk about the congress or the House of representative like it's a whole or a whole body with a smooth track that it will go through. When we say that congress are the deciders and will decide impeachment it according to Matz and Tribe "we're saying that hundreds of legislatorsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanmust separately and collectively pick a coursespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanof action. To be sure, those legislators arespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanorganized by political party and membership inspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanvarious committees, caucuses, and leadershipspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanstructures. But this organization often looks more impressive on paper than it feels on aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanday-to-day basis" (90). So in that way it's a much more unpredictable and chaotic process with no clear way forward in a sense. There is a process but in real life it does not mean it's very neat or concise. It doesn't mean it's one public conscious or anything like that. After a impeachment gets roposed, it is often referred to committees. The Judiciary usually gets many of them, and either it could be buried in that committee never to see the day of light again or maybe it will survive. However, according to Matz and tribe, "The Judiciaryspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanCommittee plays an especially importantspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanrole. It usually takes the lead in investigatingspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanmisconduct and drafting articles of impeachment" (129). It is given all the power to investigate and to determine if congress should or should not propose articles of impeachment. According to Tribe and Matz "itsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanmembers have broad authority to subpoenaspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spandocuments, call witnesses, hold hearings, makespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanlegal determinations, and undertake any otherspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanactivities necessary to fulfill their mandate" (129). After all of these investigation, sometimes very time consuming and takes a long while, The House should according to Matz and Tribe "Ultimately,span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthe committee must decide what the president did,span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanwhether that conduct is impeachable, whether impeachment isspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanwarranted, and what articles of impeachment (ifspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanany) to propose to the full house" (129. There are a few ways that a impeachment is killed and some of those arent in committees. According to tribe and Matz "the House hasspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spaneffectively killed impeachment resolutions fromspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanindividual representatives by voting them down,span class="Apple-converted-space" /spantabling them, or burying them in committee" (130). Sometimes before it goes for a committee it's not just referred but also voted class="Apple-converted-space" /spanPeople can table these things as a vote to stop these items and sometimes they are tabled. Sometimes they are just referred to the Judiciary committees. So after it comes out of the Judiciary committee as proposed articles of impeachment the house votes on that. If that goes through and it doesn't die in the Judiciary committees or vote it's pretty fortunate. It is time to decide who than is the leader of these claims according to Tribe and Matz "If the full House approves articles ofspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanimpeachment, it must select "managers" from among itsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanranks to serve as prosecutors in the Senate" (130). According to Matz and Tribe, these house managers can "be chosen in several ways: general ballot, a resolution naming individual members, orspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanselection by the Speaker of the House (though only ifspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthe Speaker has been so authorized by resolution).span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanThere are few fixed requirements" (130-131). If the impeachment goes nowhere, which is often, then it may be advisable for the House of Representatives to explain and to educate the public on why they did not want to impeach. This assumes that Congress knows more about impeachment. According to Matz and Tribe, "as said by "Representativespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanJerrold Nadler, currently the top Democratspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanon the House Judiciary Committee:/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="s1"span class="Apple-converted-space" /span[I)f we decide that the evidence isn't therespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanfor impeachment-or even if the evidence is there wespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spandecide it would tear the country apart too much, there's no buy-in, there'sspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanno bipartisanship and we shouldn't do it for whateverspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanreason-if we decide that, then it's our dutyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto educate the country why we decided it" (107-108). Before continuing on to describe the trial of these impeachment charges, according to Radnofsky,"/spanThe word "sole" appears only twice in the Constitution" (18). Interestingly enough they stress a singular body and both of these refer to the house drafting up articles of impeachment and all that's involved and the other usage in the entire constitution refers to the only body able to try this impeachment case. Also technically speaking according to Radnofsky "the officer has been "impeached" (19. But has not been removed. At this point it means that the president has been charged but not much more than that. They can still exert their power and nothing has changed, because articles of impeachment has been approved and written./p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanLegislators generally wish to have a successful impeachment an a favorable result. It doesn't always happen that way, however. In any case they use various techniques to help them. According to Radnofsky, "House managers may combine allegations requiring lesser proof with intentional and criminal misconduct. Separate articles of impeachment may reword and repeat, generalize and aggregate, and use "catch-all" clauses" (28), so to get the most people's attention and to have the most effects on it's presentation. They use multiple persuasive techniques to get there points across. According to radnofsky, "The House managers intelligently plead treachery, corruption, and financial misconduct as "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" or "impeachable offenses," avoiding the more difficult-proof elements of "Treason" or "Bribery" (28). They do this to make things easier to prove and to convict the officer on./p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanThe constitution states this "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." U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3, Clause 6. Now that the articles of impeachment is passed, it is time for the trial in the senate with the senators serving as the court and a court of judges. The House Of Representatives first at some points notifies the senate that they have the impeachments and then the senate summons them when they are ready. At this point according to Matz and Tribe "span class="s1"the managers appear before the bar of thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanSenate to orally accuse the president of "highspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanCrimes and Misdemeanors," and to "exhibit"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthe articles of impeachment against him" (131). They start off the process by starting the trial and presenting the articles of impeachment, their claims of why the president or anyone else should be impeached. Then according to Matz and Tribe "The Senate then summons the chief justice, whospan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanreplaces the vice president as the Senate'sspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpresiding officer" (131), because the president is being impeached. Usually for anyone else the vice president the president of the senate is the presiding officer. However, due to ethical concerns and having. Stake in the game the vice president isn't the presiding officer. And then according to Matz and Tribe "eachspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spansenator must swear a special oath: 'Ispan class="Apple-converted-space" /spansolemnly swear (or affirm) that in all thingsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanappertaining to the trial of the impeachment of[thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpresident], now pending, I will do impartialspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanjustice according to the Constitution and laws: So help mespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanGod.'" (132). This oath is administrated to the senators by the chief justice. This oath was not written in the constitution but made up by the senators. An oath is required but what it has to say wasn't specified. The only oath specified was the one to swear in the president. And then according to Matz and Tribe the senate "issues a writ of summonsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto the president. That sets in motion any pretrialspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpleadings that the parties may wish to file" (133). At times this process can take a while in terms of waiting for the response and responding back. At that point the events that are much more like a trial begins. Opening arguments are give, and this sometimes takes up days. Sometimes there is witnesses and cross examination. Sometimes not. If it does it can also take a few days. Then come the closing arguments, which can also take up to days. The senators must be quiet and according to mats and Tribe, "Senatorsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancan't even ask questions directly," (134). They have to submit there questions by writing it down and passing it to the Chief Justice who verbalizes it. Also according to Tribe and Matz, "If evidentiary questionsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanarise, the chief justice may rule on them himselfspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanor put the issue to a vote of the Senate. If thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanSenate disagrees with any decision by the chiefspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanjustice, it can overrule him" (133). Then it is now time to vote. According to Radnofsky /spanThe Senate votes on each impeachment article separately" (20). It is done verbally. When their name is called, he calls out his verdict. If enough people, a super majority or 2/3 go for guilty then the person is now convicted. According to Radnofsky, "If the Senate convicts on at least one article of impeachment, removal is automatic." (20). Now the official or president is now impeached, convicted and out of office. According to Radnofsky, there is yet a last step and it's optional, it is "if it chooses, may hold a vote to decide separately whether the convicted official is forever barred from holding office" (20). This will keep the impeached officers or president from again holding office and having a similar issue. It is important to keep this last thing in mind as I move on to talk about our current President Donald J Trump. We have impeached a number of judges. We have indeed impeached someone before. We have had some experience there. However, with regards to presidents it's another story. Richard Nixon was not impeached, he would have been but he resigned. We tried to impeach Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson and as for both they were pronounced not guilty by a wide majority. We have Never in our nations History ever impeached a president. Tribe and Matz have a slight concern which I can agree with and that is "span class="s1"We therefore have no historical experience with thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanfull consequences of pushing that red button." (xiii)./span/p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanTrump has definitely said some very rash things, and spoken out of turn especially on social media. This is not usual. However, these accusations which are things we supposedly should impeach him for still has not much basis. They either are not proved yet or doesn't quite seem to fit impeachment. According to Matz and Tribe, "At the same time, many of the calls to removespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanTrump were based on conduct that is not properlyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanimpeachable. For instance, some Americans appearedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto support impeaching him for withdrawing from the Parisspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanAgreement on Climate Change, for havingspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanabused women before taking office, for gutting the USspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanForeign Service, or for lending comfort to thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanneo-Nazi thugs who terrorizedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanCharlottesville, Virginia. Others pushedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanimpeachment as a response to Trump's manyspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanillegal executive orders-including hisspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spananti-Muslim entry bans, his ban on militaryspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanservice by transgender persons, his threats to punishspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spansanctuary cities, and his mistreatment ofspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanundocumented migrants brought here as childrenspan class="Apple-converted-space" /span("Dreamers")" (188). For one thing This partisan climate doesn't help. By the day the partisanship has really become toxic. According to Tribe and Matz "The centerspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanhas been hollowed out, and moderates have become anspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanendangered species" (205). This is rather sad. the calls for impeachment still seems to come from one party, mostly. However. Many democrats would like him impeached and it has been since before he got elected to office. According to Matz and tribe "on Inauguration/p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"Day, the impeachment campaign launched in class="Apple-converted-space" went live and received so many hits that it crashed" (186). However, we are very trigger happy when it comes to a few things in our nation and impeachment is one of them. It seems as though many of these people had their minds made up since the beginning and has persisted with this view, never giving him a chance. As matz and tribe observes,"In this era of polarization and echo chambers, it isspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanharder than ever before to generate politicalspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanconsensus-even on fundamental precepts of ourspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanconstitutional order. These developments have gone aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanlong way toward undermining the preconditions for aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanprudent, successful exercise of the impeachment power" (205). I am ot saying either side is right. I don't think that people who worship trump is helping anyone either. Because we are always looking for ways to praise him for what he does or demonize his character it's not helping. It's like with President Obama for instence, I don't think either are the devil or a saint. There is almost two different realities. As Tribe and Matz state "to ask whether they and their constituents may take aspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spandifferent view based on the news sources andspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spaninformation culture that they favor" (149), is the question to ask. Whatever side they are on is that reality they seem to live in. As far as I know the investigation in to Trump hasn't turned out much, or at least much earth shattering. A few people we know lied, but there is still no real proof of how guilty Trump is. Nothing that really looks that suspicious./p
p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanI think all this impeachment talk is going to come up short. For a few reasons. A lot of this is factions as mentioned before. And, this has been a situation which Hamilton had warned us about long ago. Factions cause problems and it's human nature that people havespan class="Apple-converted-space" /span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="s1""forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men" (422). But When we get down to actual impeachments a great many of them especially dealing with a president was based on factions, and according to Hamilton when we are ready prone to factions and assemble with them, "in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt" (417). This happened a few times in our history. Here William Rehnquist warns that when we are in such a hot and passionate type of situation and times "/spanit is easy for those heavily engaged in the struggle to see it as an apocalyptic confrontation between good and evil, when customary restraints must be cast off in order that evil may not triumph" (276). And this may not actually be the case. We are caught up in the passion of the moment where others who do not share oneviews are evil or at least questionable. But in the heat of the moment one never seems to see too well. Will we be the ones to be in this embarrassing situation as Rehnquist puts it "when the passions of the hour have had time to cool, be looked upon with wonder, if not with derision" (242)./p
p class="p4" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; min-height: 14px;"span class="Apple-converted-space" /span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"The other issue is this continuation of impeachment talk. As Matz and tribe has pointed out ""span class="s1"Since "1998, impeachmentspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanhas become a weapon of first resort in partisanspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancombat" (193. Which is rather unsettling, because impeachment is such a dangerous weapon. If you impeach them there is no sorry we can fix this, redo this. Is this just another course of attack or are we serious in wanting to do this? As Matz and Tribe points out "While demandsspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto impeach the president were once extraordinary,span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthey've become increasingly common in the nation'sspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpartisan civil war, where nothing is sacred andspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spaneverything can be weaponized" (177). Is trump willing to lose his presidency? Rhenquist said this with the Andrew Johnson impeachment in mind but I think we can equally apply it to trump, "/spanPresidents are willing to risk some of their prestige in the traditional trench warfare between themselves and Congress, but few wish to run a substantial risk of being removed from office" (248). However back to addressing the impeachment campaign it's just gotten worse since 1998. As Tribe and Matz observed "span class="s1"To our knowledge, 2016 was the first campaign between twospan class="Apple-converted-space" /spannon-incumbents marked by open threats of impeachment forspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanwhoever won" (185). This begs the question of is these calls for impeachment really worth paying attention to, as it started not giving the president much of a chance. furthermore, are there issues with our current administration? Yes, but can we apply a different solution such as censuring President Trump or some other method./span/p
p class="p3" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS';"span class="s1"span class="Apple-converted-space" /spanAs to would it happen, as I have addressed these calls of impeachment seems oddly regular. According to Matz and Tribe "the American people had grown accustomedspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanto it. Calls for impeachment-and denouncements of thosespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spancalls-were now firmly established in thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanpolitical dialogue" (185). It's interesting to ponder whether it is the normal process of crying wolf or if it will happen even if both the senate and the house was to become Democratic. The other problem is not having enough materials to go n with. A problem with the Johnson impeachment trial was insufficient proof, as Rehnquist quoted a senator saying "'/spanOnce set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes . . . and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with the majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important. . . . In view of the consequences likely to flow from this day's proceedings, should they result in conviction on what my judgment tells me are insufficient charges and proofs, I tremble for the future of my country'" (243). How would you impeach and convict someone you couldn't find enough evidence to support it? We have been Investigating Trump for nearly 2 years and we have still found not much. Unless we do end something major and concerning. At that point, perhaps we can persuade someone. The other problem is you would need a supermajority. I am sure you could have at most get maybe a simple majority, but you would have had to convince some Republicans and most of them are not going to impeach trump. However, as it appears now it is difficult to impeach. Firstly you will be able to pass articles of impeachment, perhaps, but also probably not. But you would never get a conviction with a heavy republican senate unless we find something so terrible that trump had done that his own party will agree to impeaching him. The midterms have given the house an incredible blue wave, indeed. However, impeachment even articles of impeachments would be hard to come by. Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach President bush, because she wanted to try to pass some useful legislation. According to Matz and tribe impeachment probably won't happen because, "span class="s1"Pelosi is eager to show herspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanparty can govern-in contrast to the chaos surroundingspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanTrump-and she believes that a reputation as thespan class="Apple-converted-space" /span"no drama' Democrats is key to taking backspan class="Apple-converted-space" /spanthe House in 2018" (191). For these reasons I do not believe impeachment is possible. Furthermore, I just think its the culture we live in, if we don't like it today's American Citizen's tend to go for the impeachment talk, but isn't all that interested in actually acting on it. There is only much more impeachment talk because quite a few more people are frustrated at this presidency and wish it away./span/p