Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Fake Impeachment Redux: Wow, This Is Perfect!

What a great, concise, way to explain what's going on:

Shipwreckedcrew makes what I believe is a sound point about impeachment after a president has left the office of the presidency. I'd been wondering about this, having read short comments by Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse, but wasn't totally satisfied. I found the notion of Leahy presiding at an impeachment trial offensive, yet I know that impeachments of judges have been handled by Senate committees, so there seemed to be a precedent. Here is the point that SWC makes, that the impeachment trial of a president is different because the head of one branch of government is at issue with the combined expressed judgments of the two houses of a second branch:

While neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers actually go into this reasoning, Federalist Nos. 65-66 seem to me to be in accord with SWC's view. If you read these numbers, it seems clear that Hamilton envisions only a sitting president as subject to impeachment and does not envision anyone other than the Chief Judge of the SCOTUS presiding at a trial. The idea of the Senate holding a trial for the purpose of preventing We The People from electing to office someone of whom the Senate disapproves is repulsive. It also illustrates exactly what Phil Kline is talking about.


  1. Someone please light up Muffin Mitt for me.

  2. Leahy said the precedent for his role was that he would act as Senate president pro tem. That the Chief Justice presided over only presidential impeachment trials. That the Senate president pro tem presided over nonpresidential impeachment trials. His problem was in lumping one who no longer holds any office in with those “nonpresidential” officeholders. Being an officeholder is the key. They cannot remove someone who is no longer there.

  3. Looks as though Surber will have to resurrect his Trumpenfreude feature:

    (And just when he was all ready for his closeup….)