[ad_1]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) issued a letter on Sunday calling on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – soon to be Majority Leader – to reject the House impeachment article against President Donald Trump, calling it “Vengeance” “unconstitutional” act effort that will hamper the “national healing” process.
Graham’s letter represents the Republicans ‘latest effort to question the legality and ethics of the Democrats’ plan to hold a Senate impeachment trial for Trump after he leaves. But Democrats argue that holding Trump accountable for his role in instigating an assault on the U.S. Capitol – and potentially preventing him from returning to office – is a critical part of restoring democratic norms and stability in America.
In his letter, Graham asks Schumer to hold a vote to reject the House impeachment article, which is expected “soon,” according to Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the main impeachment officer in the House.
Graham argues that the Senate already fulfilled its duty to defend the election when “virtually all of us” rejected Trump’s calls to overturn the 2020 election results upon Congressional certification of Biden’s victory, and that the impeachment will fuel further division. (Seven Republican senators, along with 138 members of the House, voted against certification of election results.)
“But now, in your first act as a majority leader, rather than starting the national healing that the country so desperately longs for, you seek revenge and political retaliation instead,” Graham written in his letter. “While the vice president and Senate Republicans have rejected the unconstitutional actions, you seek to impose on the Senate what in itself would be just one more unconstitutional action in this shameful saga – the impeachment trial of a former President.
Graham also challenged Democrats’ right to vote to permanently disqualify Trump from office again with Trump out of office in the Senate impeachment trial.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) also questioned whether or not Trump could stand trial in the Senate after he resigns. “The founders conceived of the impeachment process as a means of impeaching civil servants – not an investigation against private citizens,” he said in a statement on Wednesday. “The Constitution presupposes an office from which an indicted official can be removed.
But many experts say the Constitution does not offer clear guidelines on this issue and leaves open the possibility of indictment and trial for government officials even after they leave.
There are historical examples of civil servants being tried after leaving office
Democrats cited old examples of officials, such as judges, being tried even after leaving office. According to the Wall Street Journal, the US Constitution is silent on the matter, but a report from the Congressional Research Service – the internal research organization of Congress – found that “while the matter is open to debate, the weight of the scientific authority agrees that former officials can be arraigned and tried. “
The CRS report cited the example of Secretary of War William Belknap, who was indicted by the House and tried in the Senate in 1876, although he had already resigned after evidence emerged that he had acted in a corrupt manner.
Laurence Tribe, a lawyer at Harvard Law School, recently wrote in the Washington Post that “the clear weight of history, the original understanding and the practice of Congress strengthen the case for the conclusion that the end of the presidency of Donald Trump would not end his Senate trial ”.
Tribe wrote that the Constitution’s references to impeachment do not limit the power of impeachment based on whether or not an official is performing office. “Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a president who has proven to be a deadly threat to our survival as a constitutional republic should be able to run out of time on our ability to condemn his conduct and ensure that ‘it will never happen again’. he wrote.
But there is no consensus on this point of view. Former Federal Court of Appeal Judge J. Michael Luttig argued that the Senate trial would be unconstitutional and said he believes only the Supreme Court can make a final judgment on the matter.
It is not yet clear exactly when the House will send the indictment article to the Senate, but when it does, it will immediately trigger a trial. The conviction of an indicted official requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.
As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explains, if that happens, there may be a sanction vote – which includes disqualifying Trump from office again:
If the indicted official is convicted, then the Senate must decide on the sanction to be imposed on that official. According to the Constitution, “the judgment in the event of an indictment must not extend beyond the dismissal of his functions and the prohibition to occupy and enjoy any office of honor, or profit in the United States. ” The Senate must therefore effectively decide whether the mere dismissal of the civil servant is an appropriate sanction or whether permanent dismissal is justified.
It’s unclear how many Senate Republicans would join Democrats in voting either for conviction or for banning Trump from returning to office. But growing tensions between Trump and the GOP establishment have reportedly prompted Senate Majority Leader – soon to be Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell to consider acting against and condemning Trump in order to reduce his influence over the party. .
[ad_2]
Source link