Seems like only a year or so ago: The matter was coming up again(?), like now. And there was commentary about it being lawful.
________________________________
Now that the House of Representatives has impeached President Donald J. Trump for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, proceedings will shift to the Senate, which has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. That provision establishes certain basic rules for impeachment trials—the Senate shall be on “Oath or Affirmation;” the Chief Justice presides since the President is the defendant; conviction requires a two-thirds vote and can impose no punishment except removal from office and disqualification from future office—but leaves much to the imagination. So what else can we deduce about the nature of Senate impeachment trials under the Constitution? Quite a lot, as it happens.
The first and most important point about all matters of procedure for Senate impeachment trials is that they are utterly immune from judicial review. In Nixon v. United States (1993)—a case involving not President Richard Nixon but Judge Walter Nixon—the Supreme Court held that challenges to impeachment procedures present a “political question” that cannot be resolved by courts. This flows from the Senate’s “sole Power” to try impeachments, as well as the more general power of each House of Congress to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Nixon concerned a Senate rule permitting a committee of twelve Senators, rather than the whole Senate, to hear evidence in an impeachment trial and submit a report to the full Senate, but its reasoning would apply to any procedural dispute within an impeachment trial.
This does not mean that the Constitution places no restraints on the trial of impeachments. Indeed, there is a strong case that the specific procedure at issue in Nixon is unconstitutional! But the responsibility for ensuring that Senate impeachment practice conforms with the Constitution falls solely upon the Senate itself, just as it has final, unreviewable authority to determine the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The only constitutional remedy for procedural mischief by the Senate must be political.
_____________________________________
So the sequence of the sobriety is that the Senate is empowered to "Try All Impeachments." There are no more than two permitted outcomes of a two-thirds conviction. There is nothing mandatory about either one being mandatory. Both are left up to the Senate, with no judicial review.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So from Deut 23: 19-20, anyone notices the build to Matt 25: 14-30: The "Lives Don't Matter" Atrocity!)
To Try an Impeachment, Part I: The Basics | Constitution Center
Now that the House of Representatives has impeached President Donald J. Trump for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, proceedings will shift to the Senate, which has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.
constitutioncenter.org
Now that the House of Representatives has impeached President Donald J. Trump for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, proceedings will shift to the Senate, which has the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” under Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. That provision establishes certain basic rules for impeachment trials—the Senate shall be on “Oath or Affirmation;” the Chief Justice presides since the President is the defendant; conviction requires a two-thirds vote and can impose no punishment except removal from office and disqualification from future office—but leaves much to the imagination. So what else can we deduce about the nature of Senate impeachment trials under the Constitution? Quite a lot, as it happens.
The first and most important point about all matters of procedure for Senate impeachment trials is that they are utterly immune from judicial review. In Nixon v. United States (1993)—a case involving not President Richard Nixon but Judge Walter Nixon—the Supreme Court held that challenges to impeachment procedures present a “political question” that cannot be resolved by courts. This flows from the Senate’s “sole Power” to try impeachments, as well as the more general power of each House of Congress to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Nixon concerned a Senate rule permitting a committee of twelve Senators, rather than the whole Senate, to hear evidence in an impeachment trial and submit a report to the full Senate, but its reasoning would apply to any procedural dispute within an impeachment trial.
This does not mean that the Constitution places no restraints on the trial of impeachments. Indeed, there is a strong case that the specific procedure at issue in Nixon is unconstitutional! But the responsibility for ensuring that Senate impeachment practice conforms with the Constitution falls solely upon the Senate itself, just as it has final, unreviewable authority to determine the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The only constitutional remedy for procedural mischief by the Senate must be political.
_____________________________________
So the sequence of the sobriety is that the Senate is empowered to "Try All Impeachments." There are no more than two permitted outcomes of a two-thirds conviction. There is nothing mandatory about either one being mandatory. Both are left up to the Senate, with no judicial review.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(So from Deut 23: 19-20, anyone notices the build to Matt 25: 14-30: The "Lives Don't Matter" Atrocity!)
