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.
Impeachment of a Former President is Unconstitutional
As pointed out by Senator Tom Cotton, impeachment and conviction of a former President is not allowed by the impeachment provisions of the Constitution which provide in so many words that upon a conviction in the Senate the President shall be removed from office.
That is pretty obvious, which of course means that the Democrats and the DemMedia will either ignore the point or ridicule the argument.
Here is a constitutional issue that is all pertinent to the travesty foisted upon the country by Pelosi et al: the trial and conviction of a former President Trump would be in violation of the constitutional prohibition of a Bill of Attainder.
For ease of reference, I will draw upon the definition of a Bill of Attainder from Wikipedia, “A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights…”
Pelosi has alleged incitement to riot. She aims to have Trump barred from holding office. The Supreme Court has already ruled in the term limit case that there is a constitutional right for a person to run for political office.
That sure adds up to an attainder in my book.
Published in Law
And a president could resign just before trial in order to avoid any possibility that he could be barred from future office. That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
And the sentence in the Constitution that says he shall be removed from office upon conviction would still need to be in the Constitution even if there were additional clarifying language making it clear that he could also be tried after he left office.
Too many people versed in constitutional law disagree. I’m open to arguments on both sides, but it’s not obvious.
The first time I heard of the possibility of impeaching someone after leaving office was after Richard Nixon resigned. That would have been particularly moot since Nixon had already been elected to two terms and was ineligable to another such election.
But the argument was that at least it would deprive him of his federal pension and maybe his Secret Service protection (which as a former president he finally sent home after the death threats calmed down; he hired his own security which consisted of one person). That was suspect too, but the idea has been around for a long time.
Terms like disenfranchisement and bills of attainder are overwrought.
Frankly, I don’t think it rises to the level of bill of attainder, since it doesn’t involve jail, just future employment in the federal government.
If he wanted to, Trump could still run for mayor of New York, if he met the local residency requirements (he now resides in Florida). And wherever he lives, he can still vote unless he is convicted of a felony in a judicial court of law with all the due process protections.
I was in favor of impeachment, if done immediately, not where the House waited over a weekend, and begged the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment (what a typical abrogation of Congressional power). I was in favor of a two day process of impeachment and trial (where the Senate gave two hours to House managers and Presidential lawyers) with a Senate vote. Let the Congress show it has some stones for once.
That time is over.
Because we knew all the facts within two days? And we trusted the media to have presented a full and complete story of what was at least known to have happened that day? Because severe actions on short notice are usually the wisest course of action?
The Mytileneans might differ with you.
“Haste and anger are… the two greatest obstacles to wise counsel . . . ” Diodotus, 427BC
No worries, they will make up something along the way. If enough people with power are corrupted, everything’s possible.
I recommend listening to this week’s installment of Richard Epstein’s Libertarian Podcast, which is devoted to this topic.