69.26 F
New York
October 22, 2021
QuickBooks Payroll - Free 30-Day Trial
Image default
Politics

The 14th Amendment Isn't an Alternative to Impeachment

As Congress debates whether and how to remove Donald Trump from office, politicians and commentators have been quick to explore the Twenty-fifth Amendment's procedure for removing a president because of an inability \”to discharge the powers and duties of his office.\” Late night, the House of Representatives approved a nonbinding resolution formally asking V . p . Mike Pence to invoke the Twenty-fifth; he's transmitted a letter saying that he'll not do so. The House is likely to turn immediately on Wednesday to pursuing a historic second impeachment against President Trump.

Meanwhile, though, a third option for removing Trump from office has been floated: to disqualify him using a little-known provision of the Fourteenth Amendment meant to restrict former Confederates from government service after the Civil War.

Advanced by historian Eric Foner and law professors Bruce Ackerman and Gerard Magliocca, and trumpeted by Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation , it's a worse idea compared to Twenty-fifth Amendment plan. It shares with the Twenty-fifth Amendment approach the issue of novelty but comes with an even more tenuous connection to Trump's actions.

Impeachment, however, is solid, certain, and tested by long experience. It is not found in an obscure corner of the Constitution until recently familiar simply to experts. Impeachment has been used by Congress throughout the nation's history in response to the malfeasance of federal officials, including but not limited to presidents. That long history makes impeachment the right tool to remove Trump.

wenty individuals have been impeached by the House of Representatives, including 1 senator, 1 cabinet secretary, 1 Supreme Court justice, 3 presidents, and 14 federal judges. In 8 cases, the Senate dicated to convict and remove from office. Another 8 cases produced an acquittal, and 3 times, the accused resigned and ended the procedure.

The first impeachment was perhaps the strangest. In 1797, Tennessee Senator William Blount was brought up on charges for conspiring with the British to seize Spanish lands across the Gulf Coast. Blount had represented New york at the Constitutional Convention-which is to say, he was a signer of the document later used to prosecute him. The House impeached him on July 7, 1797, but the Senate expelled him the following day. The House subsequently drew up articles of impeachment for that former senator, but the Senate declined to take them up, saying it lacked jurisdiction. Ever since, members of Congress have been removed by expulsion instead of impeachment.

In the most recent pre-Trump impeachment cases, Judge Samuel Kent was impeached for sexual abuse and obstruction of justice in '09, and Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was impeached for taking bribes and for perjury in 2010. Kent resigned before the Senate could act; Porteous was convicted and removed from the bench. Both cases were heard by many people current members of Congress; Adam Schiff, Hank Johnson, and Zoe Lofgren were one of the House managers-experience that prepared them for your role in Trump's 2021 impeachment.

Rep. Alcee Hastings has a special expertise in impeachment proceedings, having been on both sides of them. He was a federal district court judge when, in 1988, he was impeached for bribery and perjury. He was convicted through the Senate and removed from office in 1989-but he was then elected as a Democrat to Congress through the state of Florida in 1992. He's now the longest-serving member of the state's congressional delegation. He voted for those three impeachments of judges that came up after his own impeachment, as well as the impeachment of President Trump, but opposed the impeachment of President Clinton.

All told, Congress has significant institutional experience, both historical as well as in present times, to carry out an impeachment that will earn widespread support. History buttresses legitimacy, which is crucial because removing a president from office has not been done before.

This is not the time for you to flex the Constitution, regardless of the need for urgency. Remember that creative approaches to the law played no small part in sparking the present crisis. The mob that descended on Washington assembled because Trump led these to believe that Pence, in his role as president from the Senate, could somehow decertify the Electoral College results and deliver a Trump victory. \”If Mike Pence does the right thing,\” Trump told the crowd on January 6, \”we win the election.\”

Trump's theory not only contradicted the role outlined for the vice president in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, but also would have transformed the vice presidency into a formidable office with the final say over who became president. The first vice president, John Adams, who considered it \”the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his Imagination conceived,\” could have been shocked. He had great power and no one told him? Fortunately, because the New York Times has reported, Pence's staff arranged to possess a respected federal judge tweet out his understanding of the vice president's limited role, an analysis that Pence immediately cited in his letter rejecting Trump's suggestion that he intervene in the Electoral College count.

s I wrote over the weekend, the Twenty-fifth Amendment is not well suited for the present circumstances. The text of the amendment speaks only of a situation in which \”the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.\” The amendment's authors clearly had in mind a medical disability.

The Fourteenth Amendment route is even more of a stretch. Here is the relevant text, from section 3 of the amendment:

No Person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort towards the enemies thereof.

The text's generic language makes it seem like it applies to more than just ex-Confederates. Yet this passage was clearly meant to address a specific problem following the Civil War: how to keep secessionists from power and prevent the old antebellum problems from resurfacing. After Reconstruction, the supply has been used only once: to keep socialist Victor Berger from Congress during World War I. But even so, a successful court challenge allowed him for everyone again.

To invoke either of the amendments now, for the first time, for any non-medical reason and against somebody that wasn't alive during the Civil War, risks giving the appearance that the goal, however achieved, was more important than the process.

Removing a president from office is novel enough. Impeachment includes a history that gives it extra heft. Congress should embrace its experience with impeachment and devote its energy to that path alone.

Related posts

Giuliani: James Comey off-limits in prez interview

admin

Elizabeth Warren claims criminal justice technique is biased

admin

Challenge for Congress: Consider Kavanaugh, keep lights on

admin

Leave a Comment