While Trump absolutely committed impeachable offenses after the election (I think his call to the GA gov was impeachable, even prior to The Biggie on 1/6), and I was all for it when it happened, now that I’ve had a little more time to simmer down and think a bit about it, it might not turn out to be the best thing to’ve done.
As said it does put the Senate in the curious position of “removing” someone who’s already gone. More than that, though, is it’ll have the ironic effect of keeping Trump around longer than he otherwise would. There’s bound to be an enormous amount of attention to the trial, before, during and after. All that will just serve to keep Trump front and center and dreadfully slow his fade out.
Even more than the above, however, is what’ll happen when Trump is acquitted, again, which I think is the almost certain outcome. He and his supporters will claim, as before, total vindication, and that could very will serve to be the the thing that resuscitates his presence, which would have otherwise died.
As much as he deserves impeachment, I think the better course may have been Congressional censure, to include a provision the he can never run for Federal office again. That would have sailed through both Houses, gotten much more bipartisan support, and sent him out toothless and cold to fade away, which is what, in the end, is best.
I’ve seen and heard this mentioned as if it’s some unprecedented misuse of the impeachment process, but since judges have been impeached after they have already left their positions there shouldn’t be any concern about the propriety of it.
It’s unprecedented to impeach a president after he’s out of office, sure, but given the fact that this is only the 4th presidential impeachment in US history you expect unprecedented things to happen. There’s no such thing as a routine presidential impeachment and I hope it never becomes routine.
They certainly cannot bar an individual from the Presidency, absent impeachment. The qualifications for being eligible to become President are in the Constitution, and Congress cannot add to them.
I see. So the only way to bar Trump from holding Federal office again is to impeach? If that is the case, then I reconsider what I said and am back to backing impeachment.
Is it in any doubt that impeachment would allow such a proscription? It has been mentioned so much lately that I assumed it to be true.
There is precedent, in two previous cases impeachment has prevented impeached federal judges from ever holding office again. There seems little doubt about the ability to do this via impeachment. What is less certain is whether or not it can be done even if the Senate fails to convict him. Some legal experts say that the Senate can do that, others say they can’t.
“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.”
Emphasis added. I don’t see how there can be any doubt that someone may, if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, be barred from ever holding the Presidency or any other Federal office.
The argument I’ve been seeing, with op-eds from constitutional scholars on both sides, is over whether or not (a) Trump can be tried in the Senate after leaving office, even though the House impeached him while he was still in office, and (b) assuming so, can he be enjoined from ever holding office again under that circumstance.
An alternative opinion I’m hearing (from an opinionated neighbor) is that Trump must absolutely NOT be enjoined from running for office again. If he is allowed to hold office again, he is likely to run again, either as a Republican or as a third party candidate, thus assuring a resounding victory for the Democratic candidate. Especially if he runs on a third party ticket.
I didn’t think he could win in the first place. I would rather not give him another chance at the Presidency, however slim it might be. And I don’t think it would be all that slim.
I actually agree with this, but for slightly different reasons. I agree with @RTFirefly that the risk of him actually winning is non-zero, and terrifying to take. But I pretty strongly believe that a democracy in which candidates are prohibited from running is not a true democracy (see: Russia).
Also, I really want a sane Republican party back, and I think the best way of that happening is for party members to make the conscious choice to move away from Trump and manifest that choice at the ballot box. If he is prohibited from running, then it becomes a race to replace him as the voice of that wing of the party and just ramps up the resentment rather than painting him as a failure and a loser. He can always say “Biden stole it from me and then both parties were so scared they wouldn’t even let me run again”.
Some individual GOP Senators, however, may be making the calculation that convicting and enjoining Trump is a way for them to force a schism they are confident they will win rather than having the slow burn of “will he run again?” for the next 2 years.
It would be pretty funny to see Democratic Senators making the argument: “I am voting to impeach, but not to prohibit him from running, because I think his future candidacy is the most effective means of tearing the GOP apart and rendering them ineffective for a generation,” and some number of GOP Senators rushing to cross that line and vote to block him from office to try to compensate for however many Dems are agreeing and joining that argument.
It would be like that Caribbean Cup game in 1994 where Barbados and Grenada both figured out they needed to score an own goal to advance and the keepers wound up switching sides.
Then the USA has never been a true democracy, because we’ve never had a situation where anyone and everyone can run for president. There are always conditions. But I strongly disagree that any nation that limits who can run is not a democracy. Frankly, this seems like a silly suggestion.
Eh, different strokes. Every time I see someone like Putin saying so-and-so can’t run I see a non-functioning democracy.
As far as I know the only current limitations on who can run are based on being a natural-born citizen and being 35 years old. Those seem like reasonable requirements, although to be honest I’d be fine with eliminating the age requirement. If the voters think a particular 34-year-old person would make a great President then I’m all for it. Hell, I’d support getting rid of the citizenship requirement too.
35 years old or older.
Natural-born US citizen.
Resident of the US for at least 14 years.
In addition, if someone is convicted in impeachment proceedings a simple majority of the Senate can declare that the convicted person can no longer hold federal office (including president, but it applies to any federal office). That is from Article I.
The 14th Amendment additionally established that if someone previously declared an oath to support the Constitution, and then rebelled against the US, they are ineligible to be president. But a 2/3 vote of the Senate can overrule that disqualification.
The 22nd Amendment will not allow a person to be elected to the office more than twice.
So there are a number of things that would disqualify a person. I’m not sure if I agree with all of them either, but the impeachment conviction is pretty reasonable. My biggest problem is with the requirement to be a natural-born citizen, and to a lesser extent the residency requirement. Being a reasonable age is fine, and the other disqualifiers are based on offenses against the country so I certainly support them. And I like that you can’t be president for more than 8 years, it prevents any one person from ruling too long.
When Putin unilaterally declares that a person can’t run, yes that it not a functioning democracy. There is a ridiculously wide gulf between a dictator in all but name deciding who can’t run, and a very difficult process that requires an overwhelming consensus between all members of Congress to occur. Let us also mention that we’ve had 45 separate presidents over a span of more than two centuries, and we have yet to have a president convicted via impeachment, let alone barred from public office. It’s certainly not a system rife with abuse.
But this is not a candidate in general, but someone who has already violated his oath of office and betrayed democracy. I see no more reason to permit someone convicted of inciting insurrection to hold office again, than to hire a cop who’s been convicted of murder or a banker who’s been convicted of bank robbery.
Trump at least comes close to being disqualified under this provision. I mean, if he’s convicted in the Senate of inciting an insurrection, I’m not sure that he’s not already disqualified under section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
