The WH just said that Nordstrom’s decision to drop Ivanka Trump’s line is a “direct attack” on the President and his policies.
That’s probably entirely legal for them (and Trump) to say. I don’t know if “abuse of power” fits, but this, a President implicitly demanding (ISTM) that companies give favorable special treatment to his family, is greatly troubling to me.
Impeachment is for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, and Congress decides what fits those criteria. And impeachment is not a penalty; it’s a charge, and investigation, of wrongdoing. The question is not whether Congress decides a President causing harm to an individual is a crime, and whether or not to impeach. The question is, is there a law on the books that defines such action as a crime. For the purposes of the GQ, I have no interest in any penalty that may be applied. This is why I posted in GQ. Either there is a law, or are laws, that prohibit the President from committing Malfeasance in Office, or there is not/are not.
There aren’t any laws that do what you say. Not sure what one would even look like.
If the president breaks the law today there is no means to prosecute him (probably…no one has tried). He needs to stop being president (impeachment, term ends) and then the law can go after him.
*Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon’s removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:
“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”
This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:
“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.*
I would call that a constitutional crisis.
Nowhere is the power to review an impeachment and conviction of a US president given to the judiciary. Maybe they could get away with making that right for themself…maybe not. I am willing to bet congress would be none too pleased about it.
SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution, and high crimes and misdemeanors is part of it. If they impeached and removed for a parking ticket, SCOTUS could certainly rule that is not a high crime or misdemeanor.
What part of “only” is confusing? There are no such laws. The only sanction is impeachment (and conviction, to be pedantic, but in everyday speech impeachment is used to include the subsequent conviction to be meaningful). Everybody has said this repeatedly.
The Presidency was set up to be free of political interference. The founders deliberately put no limitations on the President because they expected that only the best of the best would be elected and that anyone lesser would be voted out of office. Impeachment was a blanket protection for extreme cases, but they deliberately kept it extremely vague.
What are high Crimes and Misdemeanors? Look at DrDeth’s cite:
Malfeasance may be said to be what impeachment was intended to correct. If the founders rejected that specific wording, it is certain that everyone since has agreed, and no laws about the President’s malfeasance have been substituted for the remedy of impeachment.
The only sanction is impeachment. That’s the full answer.
So if I’m understanding this correctly, were the president to, say, rob a bank, he could not be arrested and charged with armed robbery. He could, however, be impeached, on the assumption that bank robbery counts as a “high crime.”
Assuming the impeachment ended in conviction, he would be out of office. Could he then be arrested and charged with armed robbery? Or would double jeopardy attach*?
*A cool usage I learned from these boards; I hope I’m usaging it correctly.
Jeopardy does not attach to impeachment proceedings. A President impeached for bank robbery could not raise the impeachment as a bar to criminal conviction for bank robbery.
All this stuff about Trump handing his companies to his kids instead of a blind trust, and conflicts of interest…is that grounds for impeachment? Or even investigation? Everybody seems to be just shrugging the whole thing off. “Oh well, that’s the Donald…”
Have the companies actually been signed over?
Last I read there was legal paperwork required that hadn’t yet been filed, but then the news stories just kinda died.
the word “abuse” does not occur anywhere in the Constitution. But it IS in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:***
And one of those clauses is the Second Amendment, added as a remedy to abuse of powers. . Something to think about.
Are you seriously saying that there were no corrupt and immoral politicians in Congress during Nixon’s time? :dubious:
Note: this is NOT a defense of Trump, or his cronies. Just a cynical observation.
I think you misread what she said. She said that there was SOME on the Republican side during that time who were not “corrupt and immoral” (to use your words, although her words were “pineless, witless, brainless, soulless”). I.e., at that time the national Republicans, while maybe not great, were still what one could call a political party and not some weird combination of a cult and crime syndicate as they are today.
“that back then some members of Congress still possessed personal integrity”
Italics mine.
There are two models.
One of them is that impeachment requires an act that is criminal. If that model is followed, then no. There is no crime here.
The second model is that impeachment’s required “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever Congress says they are, since Congress’ decision is unreviewable.
If that model is followed, then my best guess is that Congress will not impeach for this reason.
I am not arguing that some believe in this model but I will say it is silly to think this is the bar that must be met.
First, I bet we can all imagine some hypothetical thing the president could do that, while not criminal, would be sufficient to have congress impeach and everyone would agree with it.
Second, while I guess it is not definitionally “criminal”, I would submit breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as an example (or some other part as the case may be) constitutes breaking the law and should easily be sufficient to impeach. If not of what use is the constitution if there is literally no enforcement mechanism?
I’ll go along with this general thought, although I’ll point out that the specific example you raise here does not apply to Trump.
But no matter, really, since the second model is, “It’s impeachable if Congress says it is,” so truthfully Congress can impeach under the theory that Trump’s foreign hotel ownership breaches the penumbras and emanations of the Emoluments Clause, and no one can review that decision.
If the House is so-minded, that is. At present, my best guess is that the House is not so-minded.
See post #26 where DrDeth feels the SCOTUS has review power. I’d be interested in your opinion.
And I agree, impeachment is a political thing and not a legal thing and the current congress won’t impeach Trump (probably). Not that they couldn’t…I think they impeached Clinton for less.