Rand puts a nail in the coffin on second impeachment attempt.

[Invisible Man]

From the OP:



Surely you can understand how a person could take your question wrong, considering it was answered before it was asked.

My question could have been read more charitably than that.

I was looking for something more along the lines of an explanation of how anything Rand mentioned would result in the holding of this trial being unconstitutional.

 

[acptulsa]

Is that the extent of the argument? I don't see the logic there. The conclusion "violates the Constitution" doesn't follow from what comes before it in those sentences. And it looks like Rand misread the Constitution.

The Constitution only requires that the Chief Justice preside over an impeachment trial when it is the President being tried. It does not require that when it is a vice president or other civil officer, as Rand implies by including those in his claim.

I don't see where he implied anything of the sort. He rightly pointed out that the Chief Justice was not there, so clearly the sitting president is not on trial. And in a completely different sentence, he rightly pointed out that the Constitution only allows for impeachment of sitting civil officers, not private citizens.

You are putting words in the man's mouth. This is no surprise. You've done the same to a great many of us.

Admittedly he was president when he was impeached. But this trial is part of the impeachment process, and Trump is a private citizen. Perhaps you disagree with me that his current position as a private citizen makes any impeachment proceedings against him unconstitutional. Clearly it's a gray area. But it's such a clear and obvious gray area that it is bound to make one wonder why a smart person would ask such a stupid question. Gaslighting is a logical answer.

 

[Invisible Man]

In trying to understand Rand's argument and reading through everything the Constitution says about impeachment (which isn't much), I noticed that he must have listed "President, Vice President, or civil officer" the way he did as a reference to Article 2 Section 4, which says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It may be that Rand read this to mean that these exhaust the possible instances of people who can be tried in impeachment trials under the Constitution.

If that's the case, then I think he missed the import of this section, which strictly refers to removal from office. Obviously removal from office is no longer a possible result for someone who's already no longer in office. So its a given that this particular punishment can only apply to office holders.

But that says nothing about the other punishment that the Constitution allows to be given in impeachment trials in Article 1 Section 3, which is "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." An impeachment trial can't remove from office someone who doesn't currently hold office, but it can result in a judgment of disqualification from holding future offices.

Obviously there's a very valid question of whether or not it's prudent for the Senate to hold such a trial. But constitutionally, as far as I can tell, that is within the Senate's constitutional powers.

 

[Invisible Man]

And in a completely different sentence, he rightly pointed out that the Constitution only allows for impeachment of sitting civil officers, not private citizens.

I can see how he can be read that way. See the post I just made.

But when you say that "the Constitution only allows for impeachment of sitting civil officers, not private citizens," where is that in the Constitution? I don't see it.

 

[acptulsa]

I can see how he can be read that way. See the post I just made.

But when you say that "the Constitution only allows for impeachment of sitting civil officers, not private citizens," where is that in the Constitution? I don't see it.

I have a better idea. Tell me where the Constitutional provision is for removing a private citizen from public office.

 

[Invisible Man]

Clearly it's a gray area. But it's such a clear and obvious gray area that it is bound to make one wonder why a smart person would ask such a stupid question. Gaslighting is a logical answer.

Again, you're being uncharitable to me. If it's a gray area, all the more reason people should have legitimate questions that deserve discussion.

I don't think the word "gaslighting" means what you and Damien think it does.

 

[Invisible Man]

I have a better idea. Tell me where the Constitutional provision is for removing a private citizen from public office.

There is none. As I just said. That would be logically impossible, since as a private citizen they wouldn't hold an office to be removed from.

But removal from office is not the only judgment allowable in impeachment trials. The punishment can also include disqualification from holding offices, which, in contrast to removal from office, would be applicable to private citizens.

 

[acptulsa]

Again, you're being uncharitable to me. If it's a gray area, all the more reason people should have legitimate questions that deserve discussion.

I don't think the word "gaslighting" means what you and Damien think it does.

Well, you know, libertarians have a lot more respect for charity than liberals care to admit. But maybe some of us like to bolster the misconception.

There is none. As I just said. That would be logically impossible, since as a private citizen they wouldn't hold an office to be removed from.

But removal from office is not the only judgment allowable in impeachment trials. The punishment can also include disqualification from holding offices, which, in contrast to removal from office, would be applicable to private citizens.

Or maybe I just don't like giving charity to asses. No, the Constitution doesn't specifically tell Congress to get the lead out and remove him before We, the People beat them to it. Yes, banning from public office is involved, though one would hope Democrats would be democratic enough to let the people decide that.

And no, I don't feel like wasting my time on a sophist who refuses to acknowledge that the Constitution clearly reserves impeachment for current officers. Good morning.

 

[Invisible Man]

Let me ask this hypothetical question to get to what it looks like the issues are.

Go back in time to any day over the past 4 years, when Joe Biden was both a former Vice President and a current private citizen.

Do others here agree or disagree that under the Constitution, he could have been impeached and tried in the Senate during that time for any number of things, and found guilty by the Senate resulting in his being ruled disqualified from holding future offices, and thus from being eligible to run for president in 2020?

 

[Invisible Man]

Yes, banning from public office is involved, though one would hope Democrats would be democratic enough to let the people decide that.

That's a good pragmatic argument against holding this trial. But it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I wish Rand would have just made that argument instead of trying to wring some meaning out of the Constitution that requires the kind of gymnastics his does.

The fact is, the Constitution (rightly or wrongly) does give the Senate the power to preempt the ability of the people to choose someone as a future office holder by way of including disqualification from office in the possible judgments in an impeachment trial. This may be undemocratic. But it's not unconstitutional.

 

[acptulsa]

But removal from office is not the only judgment allowable in impeachment trials. The punishment can also include disqualification from holding offices, which, in contrast to removal from office, would be applicable to private citizens.

You like to play games. Play this one: Where does the Constitution explicitly say people removed by impeachment can't hold any office afterward?

 

[CaptUSA]

Let me ask this hypothetical question to get to what it looks like the issues are.

Go back in time to any day over the past 4 years, when Joe Biden was both a former Vice President and a current private citizen.

Do others here agree or disagree that under the Constitution, he could have been impeached and tried in the Senate during that time for any number of things, and found guilty by the Senate resulting in his being ruled disqualified from holding future offices, and thus from being eligible to run for president in 2020?

What a ridiculous reading of the Constitution that would be. The purpose of impeachment is the removal from office. If someone is impeached, and then resigns, the trial never happens. Why? Because that person has already removed himself. I understand your desire for the additional punishment of being barred from future office, but that is not the purpose of impeachment.

 

[CaptUSA]

You like to play games. Play this one: Where does the Constitution explicitly say people removed by impeachment can't hold any office afterward?

Article I
Section 3
Clause 7
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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/#:~:text=Judgment%20in%20Cases%20of%20Impeachment,and%20Punishment%2C%20according%20to%20Law.

 

[Invisible Man]

What a ridiculous reading of the Constitution that would be. The purpose of impeachment is the removal from office. If someone is impeached, and then resigns, the trial never happens. Why? Because that person has already removed himself. I understand your desire for the additional punishment of being barred from future office, but that is not the purpose of impeachment.

Removal from office is not the only constitutional purpose for impeachment. The addition of being barred from future office as a second one isn't just something I desire, it's explicitly given in the Constitution.

 

[donnay]

What a ridiculous reading of the Constitution that would be. The purpose of impeachment is the removal from office. If someone is impeached, and then resigns, the trial never happens. Why? Because that person has already removed himself. I understand your desire for the additional punishment of being barred from future office, but that is not the purpose of impeachment.

He needs to go back and read about Richard Nixon.

 

[acptulsa]

If someone is impeached, and then resigns, the trial never happens. Why? Because that person has already removed himself.

An excellent point! What's more, Tricky Dick Nixon was kind enough to arrange for us to have a precedent confirming that.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-3/clause-7/#:~:text=Judgment%20in%20Cases%20of%20Impeachment,and%20Punishment%2C%20according%20to%20Law.

I was trying to get him to go read the thing. I know you read it.

 

[CaptUSA]

Removal from office is not the only constitutional purpose for impeachment. The addition of being barred from future office as a second one isn't just something I desire, it's explicitly given in the Constitution.

That's just incorrect. Removal from office is the defined purpose of impeaching someone. That can carry with it the additional punishment of being barred from future office, but your ridiculous reading would mean that we could impeach anyone in the US just to prevent them from holding office in the future. That is total BS and was never intended.

 

[Invisible Man]

You like to play games. Play this one: Where does the Constitution explicitly say people removed by impeachment can't hold any office afterward?

CaptUSA just provided the quote. I also provided it along with citing the Article and Section prior to that in our discussion in posts 40 and 43.

 

[CaptUSA]

CaptUSA just provided the quote. I also provided it along with citing the Article and Section prior to that in our discussion in posts 40 and 43.

What you are reading in that quote is the limits on the punishment of impeachment. You can remove someone and then you can bar them from future office. But the impeachment proceedings can't go into further punishment - that's up to the courts. But to construe that to mean that you can bar someone from future office who is not currently holding office is wrong. Complete and utter misreading.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's just incorrect. Removal from office is the defined purpose of impeaching someone. That can carry with it the additional punishment of being barred from future office, but your ridiculous reading would mean that we could impeach anyone in the US just to prevent them from holding office in the future. That is total BS and was never intended.

That's not correct. Impeaching someone doesn't remove them from office. Impeachment is what the House does, not the Senate. It is like indictment. If the Senate finds an impeached party guilty, the judgments can include both removal from office and disqualification from future offices.

My reading does not mean that they could constitutionally impeach anyone in the US, because impeachment is for a specific type of misdeed, namely misdeeds of political natures, which can only be done by office holders (See Federalist 65). A private citizen who formerly occupied an office is not in the same position to be potentially tried for this kind of misdeed that a private citizen who has never held such an office can.

Granted, there may be certain private citizens out there who exercise powerful political influence who may fall under this possibility. I haven't really considered that possibility. But even if there are, it wouldn't be just anyone.