As we welcome the Impeachment Inquiry heading to the House Judiciary Committee, it has been reported that at least four Constitutional scholars will be called to testify as to the basis for the role Congress has in proceeding with an impeachment and potential removal of a President. As part of this process, Americans will be informed as to what the Framers actually had in mind that would elevate the wrongdoing of the Executive to the point that investigation, indictment and and trial must be held on whether that president should be removed from office. Many Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge that seeking a foreign power's interference in our elections amounts to an impeachable offense, yet they ignore the very reason provisions were written into the Constitution availing this remedy to Congress in the first place. Despite many of Trump's "legal" opinion writers, they simply ignore a truism found throughout our nation's fight for independence - to avoid having any one single person have the unchecked power an autocrat, dictator or a monarch may possess.
I am hopeful that when the hearings conclude, Americans will know that Presidents must abide by the Rule of Law, and they are not immune from its long reach. No matter how many pundits and sycophants Trump pushed out in front of the media for us all to evaluate, keep in mind that no matter how much they try, they can not erase the fact that our Founders and Framers possessed an inherent mistrust of an Executive that wields an unchecked power or ignores the oversight authority provided to Congress in the Constitution.
Without a run down of each basis for this fact, I think it is easier to simply point out (and remind Americans) that although we became a fighting nation, independent from England in 1776, we did not have our current Constitution in place until 1787. In fact, the first document controlling how our government was established and the rules in which it operated, was found in the 1777 document known as the Articles of Confederation. Should one ponder where all of the powers arose giving Congress the absolute right to confront, investigate and remove a rogue president, one need not look further than the Articles of Confederation. Why? Because the Founders feared a unitary Executive so much, they didn't even provide for a president in that document. All powers were reserved to the States with a Congress convened to act on its behalf. Execution of law was not vested in a president, but in a committee representing at least nine of the the original states. Why - because the very same reason they placed checks and balances in the Constitution against a strong Executive - they had no faith or any desire to grant such an individual such vast powers and authorities. So when Trump tweets that Impeachment is unfair and that he may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court, he fails to recognize that no one can overrule express authorities originating in the Constitution. To rule otherwise would be to ignore the very document itself (which would render each justice voting in favor of such action subject to impeachment themselves).
Under Article III of the Constitution, the High Court is limited in its jurisdiction to hear cases that pose a constitutional question - typically whether a law passed by Congress meets "Constitutional muster." They do not have authority to rule something "Unconstitutional" or "unfair" if it is expressly written in the Constitution itself. So when Trump says he might "take it all the way to the Supreme Court", he is making up a remedy that simply does not exist.
So before anyone tells you the President (under a debunked Unitary Executive Theory) has no obligation to recognize Congressional oversight and/or impeachment, remind them that the Founders and Framers specifically understood this as a possibility and gave Congress alone the power necessary to put that Executive not only in check, but also in a position to be removed And when you hear a claim impeachment efforts are an attempt to overturn an election, remind them that elections do not guarantee the right of a rogue Executive to ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Mr Trump, allow me to introduce you to the United States Constitution - you know, the one you swore to uphold and defend. Have a great week.
I am hopeful that when the hearings conclude, Americans will know that Presidents must abide by the Rule of Law, and they are not immune from its long reach. No matter how many pundits and sycophants Trump pushed out in front of the media for us all to evaluate, keep in mind that no matter how much they try, they can not erase the fact that our Founders and Framers possessed an inherent mistrust of an Executive that wields an unchecked power or ignores the oversight authority provided to Congress in the Constitution.
Without a run down of each basis for this fact, I think it is easier to simply point out (and remind Americans) that although we became a fighting nation, independent from England in 1776, we did not have our current Constitution in place until 1787. In fact, the first document controlling how our government was established and the rules in which it operated, was found in the 1777 document known as the Articles of Confederation. Should one ponder where all of the powers arose giving Congress the absolute right to confront, investigate and remove a rogue president, one need not look further than the Articles of Confederation. Why? Because the Founders feared a unitary Executive so much, they didn't even provide for a president in that document. All powers were reserved to the States with a Congress convened to act on its behalf. Execution of law was not vested in a president, but in a committee representing at least nine of the the original states. Why - because the very same reason they placed checks and balances in the Constitution against a strong Executive - they had no faith or any desire to grant such an individual such vast powers and authorities. So when Trump tweets that Impeachment is unfair and that he may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court, he fails to recognize that no one can overrule express authorities originating in the Constitution. To rule otherwise would be to ignore the very document itself (which would render each justice voting in favor of such action subject to impeachment themselves).
Under Article III of the Constitution, the High Court is limited in its jurisdiction to hear cases that pose a constitutional question - typically whether a law passed by Congress meets "Constitutional muster." They do not have authority to rule something "Unconstitutional" or "unfair" if it is expressly written in the Constitution itself. So when Trump says he might "take it all the way to the Supreme Court", he is making up a remedy that simply does not exist.
So before anyone tells you the President (under a debunked Unitary Executive Theory) has no obligation to recognize Congressional oversight and/or impeachment, remind them that the Founders and Framers specifically understood this as a possibility and gave Congress alone the power necessary to put that Executive not only in check, but also in a position to be removed And when you hear a claim impeachment efforts are an attempt to overturn an election, remind them that elections do not guarantee the right of a rogue Executive to ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Mr Trump, allow me to introduce you to the United States Constitution - you know, the one you swore to uphold and defend. Have a great week.
RSS Feed
