Another reason for Melania to be disappointed.
No fhit?
Is it relevant to consider if impeachment counts as “jeopardy”, in the sense that a federal officer:
Case 1:
A) Is accused of a felony, is tried and convicted in criminal court of appropriate jurisdiction, but (I don’t believe) this automatically deprives him of his federal office.
B) The federal officer is impeached by the relevant body, convicted, and therefore expelled or dismissed from his federal office.
Case 2:
A) Is accused of a felony, but not tried or convicted (assume insufficient evidence), remains in his federal office.
B) Gets impeached anyway, convicted, expelled.
Case 3:
A) Is accused but receives a presidential pardon before or after conviction.
B) Get impeached anyway, convicted… expelled?
Case 4:
A) Regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings, the relevant body does not pursue impeachment. If convicted and imprisoned, the federal officer retains the authority of his office, as long as he refuses to resign or is removed by other means, i.e. his constituents vote to recall, if applicable.
I gather impeachment (in the U.S. at least) only means losing one’s office - congress cannot decide to add on prison time or fines. The presidential pardon, as far as I know, has only ever applied to criminal cases. As best I can tell, criminal prosecution and impeachment are considered separate actions and either or both can be pursued (assuming applicable circumstances) against an individual completely independently. If Trump pushes the matter hard enough, this is how I would expect SCOTUS to rule, and something that was pretty broadly accepted now has to be put in writing because an idiot thinks he can game the system.
I’m too lazy to change the quote. Also, I like the idea of “ftopping” the prosecution.
Do you mean in the sense of the double jeopardy clause? I don’t think it does. It doesn’t put you at risk of “life or limb.” The original version of the clause provided: “No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence.” (cite). It was changed (apparently) out of concern that a defendant might not be able to be retried in the event of error.
I think that all of your example cases are correct. (There may be situations where a felony conviction requires removal from office, but I don’t think it is for any office where impeachment would be available. There are examples of elected officials remaining in office while incarcerated).
Yes
Yes and yes. (Although there is an an article on whether or not the president can pardon civil offenses). And while the pardon can, effectively, moot the criminal prosecution, it may not be used to moot the impeachment.
Now you’ve lost me. What matter is he “pushing”? Has he suggested that he can pardon an impeachment? Or that it constitutes double jeopardy? He has claimed he can pardon himself, which is long-debated open question. But I’m not sure he’s opined on the issue otherwise.
Well, “pushing” is an overstatement, I admit. So far, it’s all buster on his part, but if criminal charges eventually get filed, on the federal or state level, then he’ll be forced to action (I can’t see him doing the honorable thing and just resigning), which will force congress or SCOTUS, or both, to action, and a lot of questions the Republic had not felt compelled to address (“Can a president pardon himself?”, “Should a president who even gets indicted be impeached?”, “Should the impeachment issue be delayed until he is out of office?”, “Should the impeachment and the criminal case be delayed until he is out of office?”, “Should impeachment be automatic upon conviction?”, “Should invoking the 25th Amendment be automatic upon conviction?”, “What if the Vice President won’t invoke and the President refuses to resign and congress lacks the will to impeach?”, “Can the President continue to serve from a jail cell?”) will suddenly have to be answered.
Al hypothetical of course, but three years ago, I’d’ve said that about a Trump presidency.
If it’s at the state level, he can’t pardon himself (or anyone) and at the federal level, the DoJ has a policy against criminal indictments for sitting presidents. I don’t see how we get to the “then he’ll be forced to action” portion of your hypothetical.
Hmm, I stand corrected. Still, not having grounds for action never stopped Trump before. He strikes me as the kind of guy who’d unnecessarily pardon himself just for the headlines.
To be clear, there are actually two possible consequences of impeachment: The Senate can remove the offender from office, and they can also make the offender ineligible for future office (or both). But they still can’t apply any of the traditional criminal punishments like fines or imprisonment.
A related question: if the House votes to impeach someone, does the Senate have to try him?
Unless there’s something I’ve missed (could happen!), the Constitution doesn’t say. So if a Dem-controlled House voted to impeach, presumably a Senate that remained in GOP hands could tell the House to stick their bill of impeachment where the sun don’t shine. But that’s just my WAG.
No. The Senate controls it’s own calendar. Just like they chose to never schedule a hearing for Garland’s SCOTUS nomination, they could choose to never schedule a trial for impeachment. People would probably whine and stamp their feet about it. I could see the phrase “dereliction of duty” being bandied about, but I don’t see how an outside entity, aside from the American people via elections, can force the Senate to act.
To be clear, is the question what they’re allowed to do, what they can do, or what they can get away with doing?
Is that what you think supporting the Constitution and democracy amount to?