Resolved: That the Senate should not determine if an offense rises to the level of impeachment.
There is currently much disagreement between Senate Democrats and Republicans whether or not that which President Trump is accused of are actually impeachable offenses. In my opinion, this is not within the purview of the Senate. This is a trial. Jurors do not get to decide what is legal and what isn’t. The Republicans, spurred on by Trump’s defense team, are basically making a coordinated effort at jury nullification. In an actual courtroom, no lawyer would dare to make such an argument. The sole purpose of the Senate trial should be to determine whether or not the President is guilty of the crimes presented in the articles of impeachment, not the significance of the crimes
The President has been impeached, so I don’t know that they should be arguing about that. The question is whether 1) he did it, and 2) if so, that warrants conviction from the Senate. Perhaps they’re arguing that “even if he did it, he shouldn’t be removed [convicted].” That seems like a fair debate to have in the Senate. If I understand the OP, he’s arguing that the sole questions should be “did he do it?” That would invite too much mischief I think. Andrew Johnson, if I recall correctly, “did it,” but was not removed from office. Even Bill Clinton “did it.” If you’re going to allow the House to impeach for whatever they think justifies it, then the Senate should be able to weigh in too.
The idea of coming up with a standard for conviction that isn’t subject to some flavor of jury nullification is a fantasy. I can’t think of any possible way to police this.
Not letting the lawyers argue it would be a good start. There’s no practical way to enforce it but at least it would remove a Senator’s excuse of “IMHO, murder isn’t an impeachable offense.”
The fact that the Senate ACTS like a jury has fooled you (and a great many other people) into thinking that the Senate IS a jury.
It isn’t. There are far more points of dissimilarity between the Senate and a jury than there are points of similarity. Your argument is null and void because it is based on a false assumption.
I would like to think both. The Constitution is silent on the matter. My preference would be to see the Chief Justice actually preside over the trial and run it accordingly.
I always thought that the US bi-carmel system was founded on the belief or faith that it would be peopled by (generally) honest, intelligent, earnest and (relatively) reasonable men doing their best for the country.
If you hold this as the chief principle - the impeachment / trial / removal becomes a relatively simple question to work through and decide.
a) did he do it?
b) does it warrant removal?
neither question is particularly difficult if you keep in mind the overarching purpose and the standards you should be able to hold “the best person” in the US to.
Of course - if the intent is to cheat, shield and protect, then there’s fuck-all that can be done
This makes it sound like you’re more bothered by some arguing than by the final result, which under your proposal, would be equally assured as it is under current rules.
I want Trump to be convicted and sent to Hell as much as anyone, but some of the comments by his opponents are indefensible.
So who SHOULD decide? The House of Reps, with a 51% vote? That sounds good to me, in this case!
But it’s the CONSTITUTION that says the Senate decides. If we start defying the Constitution, we’d have to let state government ban their citizens from owning 20-round magazines, howitzers and anti-aircraft missiles. Can you imagine an America like that?
Suppose the Article of Impeachment read “D.J. Trump was seen chewing bubble-gum and we think that’s a high crime and/or misdemeanor.” In your system, Senators would be obligated to remove Trump from office if the bubble-gum chewing was proved. :smack:
Um, or not.
It’s more based on the idea that people will pursue what they believe is in their best interests and by setting competing institutions against each other it makes it harder for any particular viewpoint to long dominate.
I enjoy this OP, because while the idea that the Senate should just decide the facts is obviously incorrect, it is not more incorrect than the similar arguments coming from the defense that also want to treat the trial exactly like any other trial. If they want to go there, then they should be prepared to go whole hog and only vote on the facts.
It’s in the Constitution that the Senate tries the case. Not that it determines what is and what isn’t an impeachable offense.
Yes. This is exactly what I’m saying. The Senate should be triers of fact, just like any other jury. This would have the extra benefit of having the House members be more cautious in their voting since they are not as shielded from their constituents as much as Senators are due to their shorter term of office.
It is a political process. It can only be a political process. To argue that it should be treated like criminal proceeding is not productive. It’s like arguing that a duck should be a chicken.
Suppose the Article of Impeachment read “D.J. Trump was seen chewing bubble-gum and we think that’s a high crime and/or misdemeanor.” In your system, Senators would be obligated to remove Trump from office if the bubble-gum chewing was proved. :smack: