Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘Deemed Presented’
There is a lot of discussion about Nancy Pelosi holding up presentment of the Articles of Impeachment as a tactic to …..whatever it is that it “stops.” The Constitution is pretty clear that the House gets to propose and the Senate gets to dispose. It was also made clear that the Senate is both judge and jury in its proceeding to “try” the House indictment.
So, how does the Senate keep from being held hostage by the House? Simply pass a rule that having taken “judicial notice” of the adoption by the House of two Articles of Impeachment on December 18, 2019, which matter was publicly witnessed by the nation at large. The Articles shall be “deemed presented” to the Senate whether or not Her Majesty, Queen Nancy, deigns to formally present it. The Senate will then proceed to calendar it and try the matter per its own rules.
Published in General
After all, who is to stop them?
I can’t recall and can’t research it right now but didn’t Pelosi “deem” some procedural vote as passed in the Obamacare jambdown?
That would be some pretty sweet procedural payback.
Can the Senate change the rules of the trial during the trial with 51+ votes? If so, then the Senate should let Nancy choose the rules and then promptly replace them. Tyranny of the majority, right?
I find this a little mysterious. Doesn’t the Impeachment Vote “count” as having the President impeached? Or is it only official when Nancy Pelosi hands over a piece of paper to a proper representative of the Senate? If so, does this mean that the President is not actually impeached yet? And if so, all the newspapers are jumping the gun to have announced his impeachment.
Oh, he’s impeached. But now he’ll be able to say the house Democrats were too cowardly to send their weak articles to the Senate for a trial. And he’ll be right.
Yes, they can.
They might be jury, but the Chief Justice presides.
Not according to Bloomberg. That doesn’t happen until they present the articles and explain them to the Senate.
Nancy currently has cold feet.
Yes. It was healthcare. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/03/16/deem-and-pass-shows-democrats-healthcare-arrogance-problem
In the Clinton trial Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) objected when House Manager Bob Barr referred to the Senators as “jurors”.
The Chief Justice presides (as the Vice President who is the President of the Senate has an interest in the outcome) but any ruling he makes can be overruled by a majority vote of the Senate. The Senate itself is the Court.
Those weasels just wanted to damage him for 2020 and to put that terrible asterisk next to his name in the history books. But they don’t want to pay the price of having their shoddy work blow up in their faces when the Senate calls its witnesses, such as Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, and more. They’ll come out of this with so much mud splashed on their own hides that it might never wash off. They know this. In the end, the summary of this sorry episode will be that the president tried to investigate a crime, and the Democrats are trying to elect the criminal. Trump will come out on top as usual.
I got worried when I heard talk from Lindsey Graham that he didn’t want to call any witnesses in the Senate Trial and just wanted to get the whole thing over quickly without any hoopla. Then I was encouraged by Cocaine Mitch saying that he will let Trump’s lawyers dictate the proceedings. At least with Trump and his lawyers calling the shots, they will put some backbone behind the Republican Senators whose tendency is to go soft as a wet noodle when it comes to politics.
Thank you @She. That was it, unbelievable that she’s been pulling this kind of stuff for this long.
And by the way, how come just a day or two ago the impeachment was “urgent” and “the future of the Republic is in danger” and “We’re in a Constitutional Crisis!” but today all of a sudden it’s “We-e-e-el-l-l-l we’re not sure when if ever we’ll send this over to the Senate.”
That would be due to the shifting democrat standards. The Party of Science is practicing their “fluid dynamics.”
I’m thinking the GOP Senate Majority should dispatch this as quickly and unceremoniously as possible. The Dem’s are unhinged. I wouldn’t expect them to just attack on this axis – look for them to use this waiting period to “find” new corroboration of the Mueller Report (they’re still trying to open/admit grand jury testimony-they know where to find the judges to help). As much as I mistrust Lindsey Graham’s motives and would love to see the Biden’s, Schiff, “The Wistleblower!”and others dragged before oversight committee’s – they’ll lie, leak and drag more garbage for the MSM to chew over nightly.
‘This’ is the sausage they made, even as we objected to the cuts & filler that went into it. They insisted on their cooks, their ingredients and recipe – make them serve it to the judges. No seasoning, ketchup or anything else to wash it down allowed! Wrap this charade up and make them start another all over again – they’ll look even more unhinged and lose even more support. If dispatched quickly, them Dems will turn on each other even more, furious that it was done so quickly & poorly, too fast/not soon enough…who cares, their rage at another devastating loss to Trump will escalate the infighting.
This is exactly what I don’t want. A mousy little trial dispatched without fanfare. This is a golden opportunity to put the Democrats on full view and under oath, and to lay bare the truth. The news people would have to cover it as much as they’d hate to, because every alternative source and their mothers will be covering it.
Where exactly is that in the Constitution?
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate doesn’t have to wait for a trial to call witnesses. They have committees and oversight responsibility. But based on history, they don’t really care to get to the facts.
As long as the Supreme Court maintains its position that it has no jurisdiction over Senate procedure, then there would be no impediment to the Senate changing the rules at any time.
I can easily imagine, however, that the Senate probably shouldn’t test the Supreme Court’s resolve on this question too much. The Supremes are apt to changing their collective mind when pushed too far.
Section 2 Clause 5 of the US Constitution reads: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
As such, I don’t believe that the Senate can “deem” impeachment as having occurred. Only the House can decide on its own procedures. It’s up to the House to direct the Speaker to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. If the House decides not to so direct the Speaker, then the Speaker can do as he/she deems appropriate.
“I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me.”
Of course one can argue that voting to adopt the articles of impeachment implies that the Speaker has been directed to deliver those articles to the Senate. However, since the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over House procedure, only the voters can adjudicate that particular question.
Not sure how SCOTUS could change its position on this, given the plain text of the COTUS. But even if they did, I suspect the Senate (and the House as well; it has the same privileges in this area as the Senate) would quote Jackson, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
I have not said the Senate is deeming impeachment. I have said that the Senate can deem that the articles have been presented to the Senate so that they can move forward to do their role and not be hostage to the timing and whim of the House. An alternative scenario, which Trump should beat like a drum, is that the failure to present the articles to the Senate by the House nullify the articles themselves.
I just thought of another possible objection to my interpretation of the situation: If the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Senate procedure, then how could it tell the Senate that they cannot “deem” impeachment to have occurred.
My rebuttal to this (hypothetical) objection would be that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction when it comes to deciding if the procedures of one House of Congress infringe on the rights of the other House.
And on a side note, there’s a YouTube mashup of American citizens who actually believe Trump is no longer the president. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
The Democrats own “Law professor” has said that Trump is NOT impeached if the articles are not forwarded to the Senate. I have seen a suggestion that McConnell convene the Senate today, if no articles have been forwarded, entertain a motion to dismiss and go home for the holiday.
The challenge of constitutional order is that everyone needs to act as being compelled to do what they do by the constitution. In reality the President commands the instruments of enforcement (federal police and military), but the actions of the Congress and Judiciary sew insubordination in the ranks of the enforcers (and the various states that have recourse to their own police and military) if the President persistently violates the separation of powers.
Constitutional government is like money (as has been discussed in a post entitled Money, the Consensual Illusion). It only works while most of us accept the boundaries imposed by the text and reasoned interpretations thereof.
You are right. There may be some wiggle room. The Senate is not taking the Power of Impeachment from the House. The House as already done their work. They took the vote, Trump is impeached.
Rather than Deeming Impeachment, it would be more Deeming that they have received proper notice of an impeachment (by virtue of the House vote and the House Press Conferences) and it is ripe for the Senate’s consideration.
Another possibility: I’d suggest that the Chief Justice, as the presiding officer for a trial in the Senate, could refuse to start hearing arguments until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate.
While it’s true that the Senate can vote to overrule the Chief Justice on questions of procedure, I’d submit that it’s debatable whether the Senate can vote to compel the Chief Justice to hear arguments in the first place. If he simply refuses to show up in the Senate chamber until the articles of impeachment are delivered, then no impeachment trial can take place.
“We deem the articles to be delivered since you all danced around in front of cameras blabbing about it for the last two days”