Below is my column in the Washington Post on the increasing calls for impeachment. The latest poll shows 43 percent favoring impeachment. In the meantime, former Trump adviser Roger Stone has warned that impeachment could trigger an actual civil war. Even more bizarre is the addition of the Arpaio pardon as a basis for impeachment. It is all part of our life in this age of rage. However, there are serious constitutional values at stake as discussed in the column below:
There is a mechanism under which a head of government can be removed midterm. Parliamentary systems, like Great Britain’s, allow for “no confidence” motions to remove prime ministers. Parliament can pass a resolution stating “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.” But that’s not our system, and it’s doubtful that the members of Congress calling for Trump’s impeachment would relish a parliamentary approach: When such a vote succeeds, the prime minister isn’t necessarily the only politician to go. If the existing members of parliament can’t form a new government in 14 days, the entire legislative body is dissolved pending a general election. And that’s leaving aside the fact that Trump is still more popular than Congress as a whole: In the Real Clear Politics polling average, his job approval rating is under 40 percent while Congress’s wallows at around 15 percent.
The Constitution’s framers were certainly familiar with votes of no confidence, but despite their general aim to limit the authority of the presidency, they opted for a different course. They saw a danger in presidents being impeached due to shifts in political support and insulated presidents from removal by limiting the basis for impeachment and demanding a high vote threshold for removal. There would be no impulse-buy removals under the Constitution. Instead, the House of Representatives would have to impeach and the Senate convict (by two-thirds vote) based on “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors.”
The Framers were wise in this regard. Consider Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-Tenn.) statement, in the wake of Charlottesville, explaining why he supports impeachment: “If the president can’t recognize the difference between these domestic terrorists and the people who oppose their anti-American attitudes, then he cannot defend us.” Cohen doesn’t articulate a high crime or misdemeanor, let alone prove one. He appears willing to impeach Trump because the president is viewed as insufficiently opposed to far-right or racist groups. If that were the standard, any member of an opposition party could cite unacceptable views as the basis for removal from office. Cohen’s reasoning is no better than that of former congressman Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.), who was quoted in 2013 telling a constituent that if he “could write a bill” to impeach then-President Barack Obama, “it would be a dream come true.”
Though clearly farcical, the suggestion by USA Today’s Jill Lawrence that “Trump is doing an excellent impression of a president who desperately wishes to be impeached” — that his comportment in office is some sort of thinly veiled cry for help — obscures the gravity of what’s at stake with impeachment. Lowering the standard would fundamentally alter the presidency, potentially setting up future presidents to face impeachment inquiries or even removal whenever the political winds shifted against them.
Especially alarming is the argument that, “Yes, Trump Could Be Impeached for Pro-Nazi Talk.” This week, the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky evaluated the impeachment of Andrew Johnson to demonstrate why some experts believe presidents can be impeached over purely “political disagreements” — more or less reducing impeachment to the equivalent of being voted off the island on an episode of “Survival: Beltway.” Johnson was a thoroughly obnoxious president who took office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He was opposed by the Radical Republicans in Congress who sought to extend voting rights to freed slaves and limit the political power of former Confederates. Johnson was impeached by the House, but he was spared conviction (by one vote) in the Senate, which recognized, properly, that however valid opposition to the president was, in the end it amounted to a political disagreement. Had he been removed from office, it would have been an abuse of Congress’s power; and while abuses can happen, they remain abuse.
As the last lead counsel in an impeachment case — I defended U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous in 2010 — even the theoretical revival of Johnson’s impeachment is chilling: There is no clear way to defend against having insufficient values. Tomasky quotes constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, who floats the possibility that a president might be impeached for views demonstrated to be “sabotaging, not defending the Constitution — including its separation of powers, due process, and equal protection — by applauding the ideas or actions of tyrants from his bully pulpit.” But imagine what could happen if that were true. Any presidential remark deemed objectionable could be characterized as “sabotaging” constitutional values. Rather than requiring unconstitutional acts, we would impeach for unconstitutional thoughts, even though our Constitution’s standard certainly isn’t high thought crimes and misdemeanors.
This can seem weirdly incongruous, given the other presidential impeachment in our history: Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about something relatively trivial; many view Trump as opposing fundamental American values. But Clinton deserved impeachment because he lied under oath. I was one of the experts who testified before Congress during Clinton’s impeachment hearings and, despite voting for Clinton, I maintained that perjury clearly fell within the standard regardless of the subject. Presidents don’t get to lie under oath any more than Congress gets to choose impeachment standards depending on the president. While this may be frustrating and inconvenient, there is no proof Trump has committed any crime or otherwise impeachable offense.
Impeaching a president on the grounds of high contempt or misbehaviors would leave the presidency weakened. Trump won’t be our last president and we shouldn’t count on making the presidency great again if we add a no confidence option to impeachment.
Johnson’s high crime was violating the Tenure in Office Act.
The screamers on the American left cry impeachment whenever there is a Republican in office, starting with Nixon. Some on the American right are not much better when a Dem is in office. The Fourth Estate either doesn’t care about the ramifications of their pushing impeachment or it collectively doesn’t know about those ramifications. If the former, it is abdicating its role as a component of a democratic system and is disingenuous when it claims the protections our Constitution offers. If the latter, it is collectively too dumb to fulfill its role in our democracy. By a slight margin, I actually tend to favor the latter.
The best way to remove The Donald from office is in 2020. I’m including the republican primaries. I wish the people of this country would just grow up.
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles.
And the beat goes on….
https://youtu.be/gEiBk2ETar8
As always Sir, excellent article, I enjoyed the read so I am going to reblog it for you. I hope that you are able to have a good and safe week.
The problem we have here is that the political culture among partisan Democrats is grossly defective and incompatible with life in a constitutional system. They think that political offices are their property, and if they lose them in an ordinary competitive process, it ca only be through some sort of dirty trick. The tolerance among Democrats for species of electoral fraud is easily explained by the assumption that no process through which they lose office is more legitimate than a process through which they retain it. Their babble about nebulous ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and the Russians is explained by an antecedent assumption that something nefarious must have occurred for them to lose office.
The impeachment talk is derived from this understanding of their social world. It will be attended by nonsense memes which they generate and pass around amongst themselves which provide an excuse for what they want to do. The memes are manifest rubbish to anyone outside a certain social and cultural matrix, of course, but they have no serious conversations with anyone outside that matrix and collect no information outside it or are unable to digest the information they do collect.
Balderdash.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwihjvaE5vnVAhWLsFQKHZ5MAnoQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2296269%2FFrom-guns-thumbs-Film-fans-shoot-classic-movie-moments-weapons.html&psig=AFQjCNFsDOd1l6xmJiDExSynE7i-qv5VfQ&ust=1504005178343813
Professor Turley notes that “Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath for something relatively trivial.” I wonder if we haven’t recently gone in another direction and established a precedent to the contrary with James Clapper’s lying under oath to Congress about something not ‘relatively trivial” and getting away with it without even a slap on the wrist?
Prof. Turley’s column advances strong policy arguments. However, it is certainly conceivable that the pardon power could be exercised under circumstances sufficient to constitute an impeachable offense. Abuse of a constitutional power may justify impeachment proceedings even in the absence of an actual crime.
Well, there was the Clinton pardons lallapalooza. Since he waited until days before he left office to pull that caper, impeachment was moot. It says something about the culture of the Democratic Party in general and academic institutions in particular that the whole gross episode (which incorporated a pardon for Denise Rich’s husband – look at old pix of her boobs if you want to make sense of that – and Roger Clinton’s pals as well as a six-figure finder’s fee for Hugh Rodham) tainted the Clinton’s for about 5 minutes. They’ve been collecting massive speaking fees ever since.
Actually, the Rich pardon is a good example of quid pro quo corruption that would have supported impeachment in my view.
So the emoluments clause is to be ignored? That is a slippery slope.
The babble about ‘the emoluments clause’ is another meme generated by partisan Democrats to justify themselves. It isn’t offered in good faith.
You are wrong. The Washington, DC, Trump hotel.
He owns businesses. As did Jimmy Carter. As did George Washington. It’s just more BS from professor-shyster-lawfare artist Laurence Tribe. The last word on Tribe was penned 28 years ago by Stanley Brubaker.
The best way to get Trump out of office is to convince people who voted for him to vote for someone else in the next election.
The political class might want President Trump to be impeached and convicted but the American citizenry as a whole does not. President Clinton was in a similar predicament when he was impeached, and under arguably legitimate reasons, but in the end the public did not want him thrown out of office for what it perceived to be over a sex scandal, not the charges held against him.
While I don’t consider a complete upheaval to be probable, there certainly will be a great civil unrest caused by a conviction of President Trump, while some will go so far as to express concern of a civil war occurring. Though civil war is a relative term as to its severity there truly is not enough division to cause a breakdown of society here. But the political class will be the target of the anger pent up by a great number of the populous.
A society having factions that are irreconcilable, coupled with anger directed at leadership, and aggravated by living conditions of the public can lead to unrest.
Again, I don’t believe what can occur here will at all resemble what happened in Syria, the conflict’s origin shows how when conditions are ripe for unrest, one small event can spark a conflagration.
Sectarian strife, oppression by leadership, a terrible and years long drought, inequality, youth unemployment, corruption, and brutal dictatorial governance set all the kindling needed in the fire pit for a meltdown. The event believed to have started the Syrian Civil War began with a youth and his friends graffiti tagging a wall. The words read to the effect of “The people want the government to fall”. They were arrested by security forces. After being tortured, the boy died in custody, sparking outrage and led to demonstrations which in turn were violently suppressed by the government. Deaths occurred on both sides. It was only a matter of weeks before factionalism took hold and their society eventually devolved into merciless killing and terrible suffering.
We here are, fortunately, not at the level of anger and hostility manifest in pre-2011 Syria. The public is satisfied with a life of bread and circuses and actually the country is doing well financially compared with other recent years. But if Congress and the political class want to kick out President Trump, throw gasoline onto smoldering embers and self-immolate, there will be plenty of woodsmen eagerly waiting to stoke that pyre.
One problem is that there is a crevasse between the public and the political class, and institutions are so corrupted and dysfunctional that there is no ready means to bring the latter more in line with the former.
A nothing-burger rides again.
Jonathan Turley wrote: “Lowering the standard would fundamentally alter the presidency, potentially setting up future presidents to face impeachment inquiries or even removal whenever the political winds shifted against them.”
In Trump’s case it isn’t just a matter of political winds shifting, Trump is completely incompetent as a president and as a human being, and anyone with at least half a brain could clearly see his incompetence, impulsiveness and stupidity before the fiasco of an election last November.
Louise, you go through life under the illusion that your thoughts on civic matters have value. You need to disabuse yourself of this illusion. You’re just making a nuisance out of yourself.
After you.
Think and study first. Comment later.
I’ve thought and studies. She’s talking rot and you make supercilious asides which reflect your social matrix.
Louise,
“incompetent, inappropriate, ignorant” are subjective judgement calls, including when a psychiatrist makes the judgement. We all agree when someone is grossly schizophrenic or psychopathic, but most of the time we are dealing in gray areas. While the majority voted against him by 3 million votes, the majority of people polled don’t seem to be saying he needs to be impeached. (only 43% do)
While the majority voted against him by 3 million votes,
Hilligula did not win a majority of popular ballots either, even if you do not exclude the illegal aliens, felons, and postal ballots forged by Democratic Party spear-carriers.
Haha! Thanks! My entertainment is manifest … I was looking for some more Pravda Faux News regurgitation from the delusional.
this is to “who needs evidence?” susie
Hummmmm. Trump is also a shape shifting lizard that caused the hurricane to hit Texas by colluding with the Russians and their hurricane generating satellite in orbit.
If it were a democrat, and thank whoever it isn’t, instead of a Representative Constitutional Republic we could each and everyone of us vote on such things. But we aren’t and we don’t. I suggest that if an honest poll was taken the amount for would be far outweighed by the amount against. As hinted at quite broadly to the point that such a move would incite a true civil war.
What we aren’t already in one. The left has been running a revolution since 1898 the second or third in our history This last fall many of declared a legal counter revolution and carried it out with amazing success.. It’ still in effect, on going and preparing for the next go rounds.
Thankfujlly what are not is a democracy. Enough said on that non existent subject.
But a no confidence option.. That also calls for a standing shadow government in the opposition parties ready to take over at the drop fo a Homburg and umbagegga and rolled up newspaper. If that should we also not adopt on each ballot for measures and candidates a vote for None Of The Above? Same thing. Should not every state be accroded full initiative, referendum and recall? Why not?
That way if our delegates to the federal government sitting in congress impeached we could turn around and recall those who voted for (or against.) Or if a Congress was consistently late to doing it’s job on time? When you have a weakling or a fool why wait the full two years or six years?
Revolutionary War – or War For Independence.
Civil War
War against The Constitutiton Republic or Progressivism
Depending on how you count them.
The first sentence slipped into the wrong tense and should be If this were a democracy and thank the founding fathers it is not….. Both work but the basis for the one you read first is in the correction now provided.
Seems to me that The Donald violates the emoluments clause daily.
Seems to me you haven’t a clue what the content of that clause is.
I have read it carefully. You could learn the ways in which The Donald violates it.
David Benson – when Joe Biden was VP he charged the Secret Service an outrageous amount to use his guest house on his property for their staff. Did he violate the emoluments provision of the Constitution? I can see where Democrats are going with all their charges, however, we have never had a President with 525 branded businesses to his name, including several hotels.
Now, about those hotels. Some of those are franchises. He profits only if they get built and then he gets a percentage. He has no management responsibility. Actually, he is a very hands off businessman. He delegates everything, but makes the final decisions and signs the papers (however he doesn’t read them). in fact, much of his branded business is franchised. He just gets gets the cream off the top.
Paul, be careful filling up David Benson’s head with too much information. It might pop.
Provide a reference for your charge; all you have is BS, prove it. BTW, SS move out of TRump Tower rather than get gouged.
Ynot – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/14/secret-service-signs-new-deal-landlord-joe-biden/
Boy, that Rep. Cohen sounds like a real bright fellow, doesn’t he? I thought the Russian collusion business was as nonsensical as it got, but then came the “he didn’t respond quick enough in the right way using the preferred terms” line of reasoning that followed Charlottesville. How come these concerned Americans aren’t raising a fuss over Resolution 76, allowing warrantless searches around the beltway? Maybe if Trump had lifted his hand in a sort-of-maybe Nazi salute while signing it, they would have noticed.
What democrats seek is to overturn the 2016 election. Wining the 2016 election is not a crime of high office or misdemeanor. Democrats, along with embarrassed and jealous RINO’s, want to impeach President Trump for winning the election. America must be near the end of the road.
Unfortunately, your argument didn’t transcend the vitriol of those who should remember more about civics. A few perceived you to be a 45 apologist and one even called you a liar. Your words extolled the virtue of the framer’s brilliant notion of checks and balances. I get how inflamed folks are and I too am very passionate about the current debacle we call an administration. However, you were not only reciting the protocols of impeachment…your larger message was that if these protocols were to be disregarded in favor of temporal passions, we would then morph into the behavior of the worst parliamentary democracy. Think post-war Italy.
“Temporal passions” should be the title of this horrible chapter we’re living in, for sure.
An interesting argument Professor Turley–However as the Arapio pardon has proven (and with the reports that Mr. Trump sought to have the AG drop the prosecution–and probably now there is a realization on why the President was so rough on his own AG–Who espoused Trumpsim before Trump himself), he seems not to have any regard for the very thing you’ve tried to underscore in your views. There lies the challenge because Trump has in essence debased the very institution through his actions that you’ve counseled against.
As I look forward to “hopefully” see Professor Turley provide some guidance on the Arpaio pardon, I wish all in the “JT CommunitY” a great final week of August and a great labor day w-end!! 🙂
I don’t see where Trump’s attitude or the Arpaio pardon reach that level; presidents have the authority to issue pardons and some of them use it badly, like Bill Clinton did with Marc Rich.
It’s all bullsh*t, that the press is using to gin up the ratings.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
sounds good.