Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. ‘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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Al French of Damascus Moderator

    After all, who is to stop them?

    • #1
    • December 19, 2019, at 1:53 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  2. WI Con Member
    WI Con Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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. 

    • #2
    • December 19, 2019, at 1:56 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  3. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    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?

    • #3
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:12 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  4. Steven Seward Member

    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.

    • #4
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:14 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  5. OldPhil Coolidge

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    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.

    • #5
    • December 19, 2019, at 2:40 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  6. danok1 Member

    DonG (skeptic) (View Comment):

    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?

    Yes, they can.

    • #6
    • December 19, 2019, at 4:49 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  7. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Rodin: It was also made clear that the Senate is both judge and jury in its proceeding to “try” the House indictment.

    They might be jury, but the Chief Justice presides.

    • #7
    • December 19, 2019, at 5:16 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    Oh, he’s impeached

    Not according to Bloomberg. That doesn’t happen until they present the articles and explain them to the Senate.

    Nancy currently has cold feet.

    • #8
    • December 19, 2019, at 5:18 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. She Reagan
    She Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    WI Con (View Comment):

    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.

    Yes. It was healthcare. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/03/16/deem-and-pass-shows-democrats-healthcare-arrogance-problem

    • #9
    • December 19, 2019, at 5:26 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  10. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Rodin: It was also made clear that the Senate is both judge and jury in its proceeding to “try” the House indictment.

    They might be jury, but the Chief Justice presides.

    In the Clinton trial Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) objected when House Manager Bob Barr referred to the Senators as “jurors”

    The Chief Justice sustained the objection.

    “The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court [*] in this case.”

    Rehnquist thus admonished the House Managers “to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”

    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.

    • #10
    • December 19, 2019, at 5:51 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  11. RightAngles Member

    Instugator (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    Oh, he’s impeached

    Not according to Bloomberg. That doesn’t happen until they present the articles and explain them to the Senate.

    Nancy currently has cold feet.

    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.

    • #11
    • December 19, 2019, at 6:10 PM PST
    • 11 likes
  12. Steven Seward Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):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.

    • #12
    • December 19, 2019, at 6:31 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  13. WI Con Member
    WI Con Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    She (View Comment):

    WI Con (View Comment):

    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.

    Yes. It was healthcare. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2010/03/16/deem-and-pass-shows-democrats-healthcare-arrogance-problem

    Thank you @She. That was it, unbelievable that she’s been pulling this kind of stuff for this long. 

    • #13
    • December 19, 2019, at 6:50 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. RightAngles Member

    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.”

    • #14
    • December 19, 2019, at 6:57 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  15. Steven Seward Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    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.”

    • #15
    • December 19, 2019, at 7:15 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  16. WI Con Member
    WI Con Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    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.”

    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.

    • #16
    • December 19, 2019, at 7:21 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  17. Steven Seward Member

    WI Con (View Comment):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). As much as I mistrust Lindsey Graham and would love to see the Biden’s, Schiff and others dragged before oversight committee’s – they’ll lie, leak and drag more garbage for the MSM to chew over nightly.

    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.

    • #17
    • December 19, 2019, at 7:29 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  18. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Instugator (View Comment):
    Not according to Bloomberg. That doesn’t happen until they present the articles and explain them to the Senate.

    Where exactly is that in the Constitution?

     

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

    The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
    • #18
    • December 19, 2019, at 7:35 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  19. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #19
    • December 19, 2019, at 8:01 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  20. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    DonG (skeptic) (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    • #20
    • December 20, 2019, at 7:51 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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.

    • #21
    • December 20, 2019, at 7:57 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. danok1 Member

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    DonG (skeptic) (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    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!”

    • #22
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:00 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  23. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    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 force the Speaker to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. If the House decides not to so direct the Speaker to act, 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.”

    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. 

    • #23
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:02 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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.

    • #24
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:03 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  25. RightAngles Member

    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.

    • #25
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:06 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  26. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #26
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:07 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  27. Rodin Member
    Rodin

    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.

    • #27
    • December 20, 2019, at 8:18 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  28. Jager Coolidge
    Jager Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    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.

    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. 

    • #28
    • December 20, 2019, at 9:49 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  29. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #29
    • December 20, 2019, at 11:28 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  30. RightAngles Member

    Jager (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    “We deem the articles to be delivered since you all danced around in front of cameras blabbing about it for the last two days”

    • #30
    • December 20, 2019, at 11:49 AM PST
    • 5 likes