- Apr 28, 2011
- Reaction score
- In a Republic, actually
In fact, impeachment is a political – not legal – process, the sole purview of Congress, not the courts.“We all hear that the president is not above the law, but Congress is not above the law: When Congress impeached the president earlier this week, they committed six independent violations of the Constitution,” Dershowitz said on “Saturday Report.”
“First, it violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging free speech. By impeaching Trump for free speech that was protected by the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg versus Ohio, the First Amendment was violated.”
“Second, the House violated the substantive impeachment criteria in the Constitution, which limits impeachment to ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It cannot be a high crime or misdemeanor for a president to deliver remarks protected by the Constitution.
If Congress can pass no law abridging free speech, then it certainly cannot pass one impeachment resolution abridging free speech of a president.”
“Third, it violated due process by giving the president and his legal team no opportunity to present a defense or to formally challenge the articles of impeachment.”
“Fourth, by trying to put Trump on trial in the Senate after he leaves office, the House violated the provision that allows Congress to remove a sitting president [emphasis added] and, only if the Senate decides to remove him by a vote, could it add the sanction of future disbarment from running for office.
Congress has no authority over any president once he leaves office. If Congress had the power to impeach a private citizen to prevent him from running in the future, it could claim jurisdiction over millions of Americans eligible to be candidates for president in 2024.
This would be a dangerous reading of the Constitution that would allow the party in Control of Congress to impeach a popular candidate and preclude him from running.”
“Fifth, if the Senate were to conduct a trial of a private citizen, including a former president, then it would violate both the spirt and the letter of the prohibition against bills of attainder.
In Great Britain, Parliament had the authority to try kings, other officials and private citizens. The Framers of the Constitution rejected that power of Congress and also limited its trial jurisdiction to impeaching government officials only while they served in office and could be removed.
To conduct a show trial of a past president would be in violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder.”
“Sixth, Congress voted in favor of a resolution calling on [then] Vice President Mike Pence to violate the 25th Amendment of the Constitution by falsely declaring that Trump is unable to continue to perform his duties.
It is clear that the Framers of the 25th Amendment had intended it to apply on to presidents disrupted by physical illnesses, such as a stroke or by obvious mental incapacity, such as advanced Alzheimer’s, or by being unconscious after having been shot.
To call on the vice president to improperly invoke the 25th Amendment was to act in violation of the Constitution.”
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who helped defend President Donald Trump from the first impeachment sham, says there is no legal basis for 2nd impeachment, cites six areas where Constitution was violatedwww.lawenforcementtoday.com
You'll have to on the click on the link to see the various comments of what the Professor said, but two I'd like to point out: One is that Dershoitz is correct. If they can impeach a private citizen which would stop anybody they targeted from running for the office of the presidency, then the Democrats could impeach any threatening contender from running against such a misfit like Joe Biden. And don't say Democrats would never do such a thing because these power hungry SOB"s will do anything they can get away with. Secondly is the fact that the reason Trump couldn't mass deport illegals in the country is because our law allows those invaders the right to defend themselves from such actions. So how is it invaders get the right of defense and a US President doesn't?
The congressional oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Nancy Piglosi without a doubt violated her oath of office, and she should be removed.
Consequently, the House’s action is not subject to judicial review as there isn’t even the ‘potential’ that the Constitution might be ‘violated.’