{"id":88507,"date":"2019-05-24T10:26:17","date_gmt":"2019-05-24T14:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.gayfriendschat.com\/socialblog\/the-constitution-dictates-that-impeachment-must-not-be-partisan\/"},"modified":"2019-05-24T10:26:17","modified_gmt":"2019-05-24T14:26:17","slug":"the-constitution-dictates-that-impeachment-must-not-be-partisan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gayfriendschat.com\/socialblog\/the-constitution-dictates-that-impeachment-must-not-be-partisan\/","title":{"rendered":"The Constitution Dictates That Impeachment Must Not Be Partisan"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Constitution Dictates That Impeachment Must Not Be Partisan<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Barely two decades since the impeachment of Bill Clinton<\/a>, the people of the United States again are confronting the possibility that their president, now Donald Trump, could be impeached, meaning charged by the House of Representatives<\/a> with offenses that, if proved in a Senate trial, would remove him from office.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, politics have pervaded the debate. <\/p>\n

Many, perhaps most, assume that impeachment of a president should be, or inevitably will devolve into a political melee<\/a>. The few historic examples that exist show political motivations \u2013 to varying degrees \u2013 in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.<\/p>\n

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The Washington Post<\/a> in March that \u201cimpeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there\u2019s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don\u2019t think we should go down that path.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most Democratic leaders don\u2019t want impeachment, at least at this point<\/a>, fearing a political backlash in 2020 if they pursue impeachment. Some believe that if impeached in the House and tried and acquitted by the Senate, Trump\u2019s political popularity will skyrocket<\/a> like Bill Clinton\u2019s did after his impeachment in 1998. <\/p>\n

Nonetheless, impeachment supporters in the House now number, according to The New York Times<\/a>, \u201croughly two dozen.\u201d House and Senate Democratic leaders are facing increased calls<\/a> by a growing number of colleagues<\/a> to begin formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.<\/p>\n

To date, only one Republican has joined the chorus, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Other Republicans \u2013 supporters of President Trump \u2013 accuse Democrats of using impeachment to overturn<\/a> the 2016 presidential election.<\/p>\n

Politics now characterize the serious issue of whether Trump has obstructed justice and committed other offenses worthy of his removal from office.<\/p>\n

As a scholar of law<\/a>, I believe that under our Constitution, impeachment \u2013 or the decision not to impeach \u2013 must not be based on partisan considerations.<\/p>\n

Rooted in the Constitution<\/h2>\n

Some advocates of impeachment have recognized the correct basis to decide whether Congress should investigate and impeach President Trump. <\/p>\n

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania announced in a May 21 press release,<\/a> \u201cWe took an oath to uphold our constitution and the President\u2019s efforts to cover up his acts, and those of his campaign and administration, threaten the foundation of our democracy.\u201d <\/p>\n

Similarly, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a Democratic candidate for president, urged that based on their oaths to safeguard the Constitution, the House of Representatives has an affirmative duty to begin a full impeachment investigation<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Leaving aside whether the present record supports an impeachment inquiry against Trump, I believe Warren and Scanlon are right that the decisions whether to impeach and possibly remove any president from office should be rooted in the Constitution itself.<\/p>\n

Corrupting the office<\/h2>\n

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives sole power to impeach<\/a>, meaning to formally charge that the president (or other federal \u201cOfficer\u201d) has committed offenses worthy of immediate removal from office. <\/p>\n

The Senate conducts the impeachment trial<\/a>. A conviction requires a super-majority of no less than two-thirds of all senators. <\/p>\n

The Framers decided<\/a> that power as drastic as removing a sitting president should belong to Congress, the branch of government most closely associated with the will of the people. <\/p>\n

Rather than leaving impeachment to the Supreme Court or other small, unelected body, impeachment becomes the tool of the national will \u2013 not a political will, but rather the national will to respect the Constitution\u2019s neutral legal requirements.<\/p>\n

Of course, as the Framers well knew, by its very nature Congress would be, and indeed is, politically partisan. Voters elect members of Congress to enact laws based on those voters\u2019 policy preferences. Inevitably, laws favored by the \u201cmajority\u201d may frustrate or even hinder voters whose candidates lost. <\/p>\n

Such is the normal \u201cgive and take\u201d of democracy.<\/p>\n

However, the Constitution clarifies that regarding impeachment, Congress cannot conduct business as usual. Like declaring war, impeachment is one of the rare matters where politics should be utterly inappropriate.<\/p>\n

The Constitution\u2019s Article II, Section 4<\/a> commands that a president may be removed from office only for \u201cConviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Accordingly, Congress must base its decisions whether to impeach and to remove a president from office on a factual, politically neutral record demonstrating whether the president actually has committed, in the Constitution\u2019s language, \u201cCrimes.\u201d <\/p>\n

This plain text tells us that impeachment is not a device by which a disgruntled Congress may negate the voters\u2019 political choice, even if Congress honestly believes a duly elected president\u2019s policies are unsound, reckless or dangerous. Rather, Congress must approach the matter whether a president has committed constitutional \u201cCrimes\u201d as if it were jurors in a courtroom. <\/p>\n

Commentators, then, rightly have denounced the seemingly political nature<\/a> of Clinton\u2019s impeachment and, roughly 130 years earlier, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.<\/p>\n

Offenses against the government<\/h2>\n

Importantly, history shows that the Constitution\u2019s term \u201cother high Crimes and Misdemeanors\u201d is not limited to actual criminal conduct. <\/p>\n

Noted scholars Ronald Rotunda and John Nowak<\/a> explain that the Framers wisely intended the phrase \u201cor other high Crimes and Misdemeanors\u201d to include undermining the Constitution and similar, \u201cgreat offenses against the federal government (like abuse of power) even if they are not necessarily crimes.\u201d <\/p>\n

For instance, Alexander Hamilton asserted<\/a> that, while likely to be criminal acts, impeachable wrongdoings \u201care those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men<\/a> \u2026 from the abuse or violation of some public trust.\u201d <\/p>\n

James Madison urged that impeachment is appropriate<\/a> for \u201closs of capacity, or corruption \u2026 [that] might be fatal to the republic.\u201d <\/p>\n

And founding father Benjamin Franklin agreed that impeachment<\/a> is \u201cthe best way \u2026 for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.\u201d <\/p>\n

Thus, out of respect for the democratic process, a president cannot be impeached to promote Congress\u2019 political agenda. Nor should lawmakers avoid impeachment because of perceived political cost.<\/p>\n

Rather, given its remarkable gravity, a president should be impeached for conduct that \u2013 if committed by any president regardless of political or party affiliations \u2013 so taints or corrupts the presidency, he or she must be removed to preserve the integrity of American government.<\/p>\n

Thus, the standard for impeachment must be politically neutral. Otherwise, impeachment becomes an illegitimate device to overturn elections.<\/p>\n

Peter Brandon Bayer<\/a>, Associate Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The post The Constitution Dictates That Impeachment Must Not Be Partisan<\/a> appeared first on Towleroad Gay News<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a> <\/a> <\/a> <\/a> <\/a> <\/a>\n<\/div>\n

\"\"
\n<\/p>\n

The Constitution Dictates That Impeachment Must Not Be Partisan<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n