Impeachment Question

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

Neither can the Majority Leader - anything he or she promises can be overturned by a majority of the Senate, and there’s nothing either of them can do about it.

This is a good point. What powers does the Senate Majority Leader have as an individual? As opposed to being the leading member of the majority party.

In other words, what can a Majority Leader do if he doesn’t have the support of the other Senators in his party? If the House Speaker strikes an agreement with a group of Republican Senators, is there anything the Senate Majority Leader can do to override it?

[cmosdes]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not seeing that. That article says “agreeing to a rules change resolution requires only a majority vote”.

But the catch is getting the rule change to a vote. Senators can delay the vote by means such as filibustering. Invoking cloture is how you stop the various debates and hold the vote. And invoking cloture requires a two thirds vote.

However, that’s not really useful in this hypothetical situation. If one party wants to delay an impeachment hearing and tries to change the rules to do so and the other party tries to prevent the rules change by filibustering the proposed rules change, then the result will be the impeachment hearing will be delayed by the filibuster. Either way, the first party achieves its goal of delaying the hearing.

If you look at the nuclear option, there is a way around the filibuster.

In the end, there is NOTHING the minority party can do to guarantee the will of the majority won’t be enforced if the majority wants it bad enough.

[Saint_Cad]

@Wrenching_Spanners

I agree with you. Article I, Section 2, Statement 5:
The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment”. If it votes affirmatively that a person is impeached, then that person is impeached. End of story.

But that is not necessarily synonymous with the House agreeing to the articles of impeachment. I believe that by the House’s own procedure, the officer is impeached when the House managers have been appointed.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not seeing that. That article says “agreeing to a rules change resolution requires only a majority vote”.

The way I read it was getting the Senate to consider a rules change only requires a majority vote. Agreeing to a new rule requires a 2/3 vote.

[cmosdes]

@Whack-a-Mole

The way I read it was getting the Senate to consider a rules change only requires a majority vote. Agreeing to a new rule requires a 2/3 vote.

Check out “nuclear option.” If you believe Wikipedia (bolding mine):

This procedure uses Rule XX to allow the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term “nuclear option” is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

[md2000]

@Northern_Piper

That assumes the Senate majority leader has full support of his caucus. If somme members of caucus are inclined to want to call witnesses, and all of the members of the other caucus want to call witnesses, then it comes down to a vote on a motion to call witnesses.

@Whack-a-Mole

If there is one thing republicans are stellar at it is keeping their caucus voting in lockstep. It is very rare for a republican to break with the pack. The Tea Party primaried the hell out of republicans who dared step out of line and it worked. They are all too terrified to ever break with the leadership.

One thing that is not really law but figures in the political mix - some commentators have mentioned that by March or so, most primaries are settled and it is too late for one faction of the party to challenge the incumbents of their party with whom they disagree. If a senator feels that they can benefit in the general election from being an “honest broker” and voting against measures that amount to a sham trial, then when they are free from challenges to their candidacy, they are much harder to keep in line. After all, what would their party do then? Encourage the other side to win the senate seat? And the election after that is in 6 years, an eternity in politics.

In the current senate, there are IIRC 47 Democratic senators. Add in someone like Romney; it would take only 3 more to feel they could do better by appearing to be even-handed.

I think this is the issue - not the laws, but the ticking clock on election procedures. Mitch desperately wants the matter settled before the senators feel they are beyond challenges.

Here’s another interesting legal question:

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
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 Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If the punishment for impeachment and removal includes not being able to profit from the government, would that mean the Secret Service would be forbidden from paying rent to any properties owned by a disgraced ex-President?

[Saint_Cad]

@md2000

If the punishment for impeachment and removal includes not being able to profit from the government, would that mean the Secret Service would be forbidden from paying rent to any properties owned by a disgraced ex-President?

I do not believe the Constitution states that.

[Mangosteen]

@Johanna

Given recent developments, it seems that the Senate leadership is free to flout any and all traditions, with impunity, whenever it brings advantage to their party. So tradition carries no more weight in the present discussion than yesterday’s garbage.

Its kinda like when Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed to think “long term” and broke tradition in November 2013, and used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule thinking that there would never be a Republican majority in the Senate again.

[RioRico]

@md2000

If the punishment for impeachment and removal includes not being able to profit from the government, would that mean the Secret Service would be forbidden from paying rent to any properties owned by a disgraced ex-President?

For that matter, when a POTUS is removed from office, do they and their family rate lifetime Secret Service protection? Do receive a pension?

[Iggy]

@RioRico

For that matter, when a POTUS is removed from office, do they and their family rate lifetime Secret Service protection? Do receive a pension?

The pension for a “former president” is provided for under 3 U.S.C. § 102. The law provides that the term “former president”…

(f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person–

(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;

(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and

(3) who does not then currently hold such office.

Section 4 of article II of the Constitution refers to removal by impeachment.

So… A previously impeached president can receive the government provided pension so long as he was not removed from office by vote of the Senate. Removal by resignation or via the 25th Amendment are not addressed, so apparently a president who left office under those circumstances would be eligible for the former president pension.