New answers tagged

7

You seem to have answered your own question: "...thus the potential is wide open for a federal officer to be removed from office for something that isn't necessarily a crime just because both Houses of Congress voted enough to say it is." Impeachment & conviction do not require the offense to be a crime. In the Constitution, the word "...


9

Consider: POTUS has unrestricted right to declassify documents. A hypothetical POTUS (for whatever reason) knowingly and willingly declassifies and releases a trove of CIA documents including the personal identifying information of hundreds of foreign-based undercover CIA agents. Has this POTUS committed a crime? OTOH, has this POTUS done grievous damage to ...


-2

Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one. Members of congress are generally immune from anything they say or do while acting in official capacity. Nonmembers that testify under oath could in theory be tried for perjury, but that is at the discretion of the executive branch. Congress's enforcement powers are limited to removal of office, or ...


2

The constitution isn't a rulebook to cover every single possible scenario. Impeachment as written covers "presidents". But that is narrow in scope and does not represent any potential timelines when it can be used. There isn't specific text regarding impeaching someone out of office or a former president or when impeachments can be held or when ...


9

Lies before Congress, including in an impeachment trial, can be penalized. In a trial of an impeachment in the US Senate, any witnesses give their testimony under oath, and are subject to the same potential penalties for perjury as any witness in any ordinary trial or other court proceeding. However, the case managers from the house (who are in effect the ...


13

Short answer: because courts (and the US Supreme Court in particular) rarely rule on hypotheticals, and nobody has ever been successfully impeached while out of office and then challenged that decision. Until that happens, the matter will remain undecided. Slightly longer, assuming that it had been challenged and ruled constitutional, all that would change ...


24

First of all, none of the occasions (now three) when an impeachment has been considered by the Senate after the person impeached was no longer in office led to a vote of conviction. In each case, at least some Senators voted against conviction on the ground that the proceedings were not constitutionally authorized. If Trump, or any other official, had been ...


50

Why is the constitutionality of the issue not settled by these votes? Because Senate votes don't determine constitutionality and how the Senate conducts impeachment trials and why it does so in that manner is its own business. And if these votes are insufficient to settle the issue, how can it be resolved and why hasn't this avenue been pursued? It can't ...


18

Due process means (put simply) that the government will not punish a citizen for a crime unless it has been demonstrated — within a prescribed set of legal procedures — that the crime was committed by the person in question. Usually this means things like avoiding unnecessary delays, ensuring proper counsel, preventing expropriation of money or property, and ...


11

First off, he's making a political statement, not a statement of legal fact. As a matter of professionalism he'll aggressively advocate for the interests of his client, and this can often result in public claims that various sacred rights have been trampled, even if on a technical, legal level this is total bullshit and he knows it. That said, as to the ...


3

Do senators have to attend an impeachment trial in order to be allowed to vote on the verdict? No. There are only a few cases where Senators need be present. For the oath or affirmation – required of those who will vote on the articles of impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 (See, Excused from Participation in Trial ..., below.) Whenever there is a ...


8

The impeachment by the House of Representatives took place and was passed while Mr. Trump was still President. The impeachment trial by the Senate started after Mr. Trump left office; he is no longer the President. The Constitution does not cover this particular case.


11

John Pickering was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1803 and convicted by the Senate in 1804. The vote in the impeachment trial was 19 to 7. There were 34 Senators at the time, so eight did not vote. Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1912 and convicted by the Senate on five of the thirteen articles of ...


26

The precise wording in the Constitution (with emphasis added) is: 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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included