2

I have seen many arguing that the senate trial cannot continue because Trump is now a private citizen. One cannot impeach a private citizen.

But the impeachment by the House occurred during Trump's presidency, not after. It is only the trial that is occurring after. What is the argument for why this qualifies as impeaching a private citizen? Is it a wording in the rules of the senate that is being leveraged?

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
Cort Ammon
  • 1,486
  • 11
  • 14
  • 2
    There IS no valid argument, there are only Trump supporters trying to confuse the issue. See for instance their claims that Trump actually won the election. – jamesqf Jan 27 '21 at 19:06
  • 1
    This does not appear to be a duplicate of the other question as it is not asking about impeaching a president after they leave office but conducting the impeachment trial. – Joe W Jan 28 '21 at 01:25
  • 1
    @JoeW I felt so as well. However, when I looked at the accepted answer, it did a very good job of covering this case. I don't know how stack exchange likes to handle that corner case, but the answer did address my question, even if the questions themselves were different! – Cort Ammon Jan 28 '21 at 01:34

1 Answers1

2

Article II section 4 of the US constitution says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Articel one section 3 says (in pertinant part):

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.

Both provisions seem to contemplate that an impeachment and Senate trial would always be of a sitting official, and since it says "removal from office and disqualification" there is an argument that when removal from office is not possible, impeachment and trial cannot lawfully occur. Ther is no clear precedent, and such precedents as exist are over 150 years old.

The Senate could vote to dismiss the articles of Impeachment on this ground, or individual Senators could cite this as a reason not to vote to convict. No one yet knows with assurance what the Senate will do. As the Senate has "sole power" to try impeachments, it is probable that no court would consider the question.

David Siegel
  • 2,621
  • 7
  • 29
  • 2
    The Senate has already taken a vote on whether to dismiss on this ground, and it failed. – Barmar Jan 27 '21 at 17:59
  • But you're probably right that many of them will use this reason in the conviction vote. I also predict that much of the testimony during the trial will address this, rather than the facts of the case. – Barmar Jan 27 '21 at 18:01
  • 2
    I don't think that the founders accounted for the possibility of someone committing an impeachable offense so close to the end of their term in office and that the senate would hold off on the trial until after the person left office. I think if push comes to shove that leaving office won't be a shield for avoiding an impeachment that happened while the person was still in office. There are already cases in the history books of people still getting tired after leaving office to avoid the impeachment trial. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/impeachment/resignation-was-not-end – Joe W Jan 27 '21 at 18:07
  • They almost certainly did consider it. What leads you to conclude that they didn't? Their words are very specific. Their objective, after all, was to provide a mechanism to remove an official. What they did not anticipate is that impeachment would become a political weapon. – acpilot Jan 29 '21 at 20:12
  • @acpilot Nothing that I have seen in the Federalist, the Anti-Federalist or other discussions of the constitution from around the time of its ratification mentions the possibility one way or another. But impeachment by the English parliament, which US impeachment was clearly based on, had often been a political weapon, and the4 founders knew the political history of England well. Indeed the Federalist mentions in connection with the pardon power the possibility of a President conspiring with supporters outside the govt to gain improper power. – David Siegel Jan 29 '21 at 21:21