This is a Constitutional question, a matter of law. Why is it not before the court?

 

The Senators hearing the case for impeachment of Donald Trump are jurors. They've been sworn in as jurors. Ordinarily jurors decide issues of fact. Where there are disputed issues of law those are ordinarily the remit of the courts. 

Trump's defence seems to be that it is unconstitutional for a president to be impeached after that person has left office. It's a "saved by the bell" argument. It is not enough that the impugned conduct occur while the accused was in office or that the articles of impeachment were issued and delivered to the Senate while the Trump was still president.

Surely this is a question that should be resolved by a reference to the US Supreme Court. Without the court's imprimatur a constitutional point of interpretation decided by partisans serving as jurors lacks any semblance of integrity.

I know of no other situation where the US Constitution is to be interpreted conclusively by legislators and yet there seems to be no objection raised by the Democrats behind the impeachment process.

Damned if I can understand this.

Comments

  1. It's all about finding a fig leaf, Mound. Once again, the Republicans can't argue the facts of the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's certainly an easy out for guys like McConnell and Graham who let their guard down and said some pretty damning things in the immediate wake of the January 6 assault on the Capitol. McConnell, in particular, condemned Trump and the rest of his cadre of spreading lies to inflame "the mob" into attacking the Capitol. Pretty hard to climb down from that one.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gun We Point at Our Own Heads

Navigating the Minefield of Short-Termism

The Cognoscenti Syndrome