News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

Started by Caliga, November 07, 2020, 12:07:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 06, 2021, 07:59:12 PM
I was just curious so I checked wikipedia--if it is accurate it looks like it would have precedent for the senate to not proceed to a trial for an impeached official who left office.

What precedent is that?

As I mentioned I only checked wikipedia, but it seems (per wikipedia) Mark W. Delahay was a federal judge impeached due to drunkenness that resigned and didn't get tried back in the 1870s, and there were a couple other similar ones as well.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

It says impeachment articles were never drafted for Delahay nor sent to the Senate. So they couldn't have held a trial.

Both the House and Senate have the discretion to decide that removal of office is sufficient sanction and elect not to pursue matters further. That is very different from the constitutionally and historically absurd claim that the Senate lacks the power to try such cases.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 11:12:07 AM
It says impeachment articles were never drafted for Delahay nor sent to the Senate. So they couldn't have held a trial.


I'm just going off the list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Impeachment%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20the%20process,President%20for%20misconduct%20alleged%20to%20have%20been%20committed.

It looks like there were 3 judges that have dates of impeachment but no trial was held (again just per wikipedia):

Delahay
English
Kent

Maybe I'm missing one because the article states: "Of the 21 impeachments by the House, eight were convicted and removed from office, four cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office and the Senate did not pursue the case, eight ended in acquittal and one is still pending."

QuoteBoth the House and Senate have the discretion to decide that removal of office is sufficient sanction and elect not to pursue matters further. That is very different from the constitutionally and historically absurd claim that the Senate lacks the power to try such cases.

That was never my point. My point was that CC is wrong (at least per wikipedia) to say it would be unprecedented.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

OK - I think I get your point - that the Senate could delay or elect to forgo a trial in its discretion.  That's true, the Senate is the master of itself.

But the objection raised by the minority is a constitutional and jurisdictional one, and that is without support.

I personally don't see much benefit in pulling the bandaid off slowly.  Get it done and one way or other put the man in the rear view mirror.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2021, 03:21:25 PM

But the objection raised by the minority is a constitutional and jurisdictional one, and that is without support.

That was not my objection.

QuoteI personally don't see much benefit in pulling the bandaid off slowly.  Get it done and one way or other put the man in the rear view mirror.

Imagine a counterfactual. Mitch McConnell has a majority and sets a pace for approving nominees. He says, "We'll approve 7 in the first 3 weeks of Biden's term, take a week or so off, and then take up others. Seven in month one seems like a good number. I don't see much benefit in going faster than that." Democrats would be losing their shit that he was obstructing the Biden administration.

It is also suspicious that the covid relief package is destined to come back from the house only after the senate trial is expected to end. It isn't a stretch to wonder if holding the trial now is slowing down that package.

Trump isn't going into the rear view mirror. He is destined to be acquitted and is probably the most likely person to be the GOP nominee in 2024. My hunch is that some of the procedural issues -- like witnesses -- are being decided based on Democratic senators seeing the same pressures I'm pointing out and just wanting the trial to end as fast as possible. If you put this off a few months, you could be much more thorough. Or--even better--you could piggy back off of a criminal trial.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to.  If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

OttoVonBismarck

Lawfare's podcast had a good review of the constitutionality of "late impeachments" that was worth the listen, the guy they had on is more or less considered the only real expert on them since it's not an area of law frequently explored or typically of any real import. That guy came down on the side of believing they are constitutional, but acknowledged the people raising claims that it is unconstitutional have arguments with merit even though he disagreed with them. His core reason for coming down on the side of them considering all of the facts, was that the contrary belief would be that a poorly behaving official could simply resign to avoid the penalty of lifetime disqualification, and then simply be reappointed (in the case of appointed officials) or re-elected, which he thinks would not have been the intent of the founder's. He also mentioned that the constitution uses language about impeachment that highly suggests it's largely congress's sole discretion as to how to use it, suggesting there was not an intention for the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of an impeachment proceeding, but rather the discretion of the congress itself.

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2021, 10:18:26 AM
The impeachment trial is just an excuse; the Senate can walk and chew gum at the same time if it wants to.  If Zombie Scalia came to life, McConnell would get a vote to have him reinstated to the Court through committee and on the floor in nano-seconds, even if was December 24 and a Martian-Jewish alliance was assaulting DC with orbital space lasers..

I'm confused on this...McConnell isn't in charge...the Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer. Absent a trial, it does seem likely they would be proceeding with other business.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2021, 11:03:48 AM
I'm confused on this...McConnell isn't in charge...the Majority Leader is Chuck Schumer.

Incorrect.  Joe Manchin is in charge.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Minsky Moment

#609
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 08, 2021, 10:30:32 AM
Lawfare's podcast had a good review of the constitutionality of "late impeachments" that was worth the listen, the guy they had on is more or less considered the only real expert on them since it's not an area of law frequently explored or typically of any real import. That guy came down on the side of believing they are constitutional, but acknowledged the people raising claims that it is unconstitutional have arguments with merit even though he disagreed with them.

I'll put aside the expertise claim; there are many people who have written books or academic articles on the impeachment power.  I have heard people say that the unconstitutionality argument has merit; what I haven't seen in any arguments that seem meritorious. I would compare that with say the self-pardon question which I think has a clear answer -- it's not permissible - but for which there is an obvious meritorious argument to the contrary - namely that the pardon clause contains no such limitation.  There doesn't seem to be an argument of that strength on the former impeachment question.

Let's start by approaching it like Justice Scalia would.  First look at the text of the impeachment power: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment".  That is pretty straightforward. The power of impeachment is given to the House, there is no limitation to sitting officers. OK what about the Senate - does the Constitution remove their jurisdiction to try former officers?  No is it also unqualified in the same way: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."  I.e. if the House can impeach, the Senate can try.

The one argument I've seen is that Article II states that: "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".  The argument is that since impeachment entails removal of a sitting officer, it must be the case that former officers can't be impeached.  Even stating the argument, it makes no sense: how does the conclusion follow from the premise?  To analogize to another example, it is correct statement of law to say that that an alien convicted of a crime of violence is deportable.  Does that mean US citizens can't be convicted of crimes of violence because they are not deportable?

OK but what if the *ONLY* sanction available for crimes of violence was deportation?  Then the argument might hold because what would be the point of trying a US citizen?  So if the only sanction available in impeachment was removal, the argument could hold pragmatically.  But of course that isn't true either -because the officeholder bar is an available sanction that can apply to former as well as current officeholders.

Then there is the next element of the Scalia analysis: the original "public meaning" of the impeachment clause at the time it was adopted - i.e. was it understood at the time to reach former officers.  That one is easy: not only did the known 18th century English precedents involve impeachment of former officers (not current), but at the time the Constitution was being drafted, debated and then ratified, one of the biggest news stories in the English speaking world was the impeachment of Warren Hastings - who was impeached about 2 years after holding office.

Given that background, it is not surprising that the very first known federal impeachment involved the trial of a former officer - more than a year after he fled the District for good - and that there is no record of any objection raised on that ground.  Eighty years later, when Belknap was impeached, the issue was raised but then rejected, and Belknap was also tried despite having already left office.

When one leaves Scalialand and considers question like purpose and likely intent, the question is even clearer, as the dangers of allowing officials to escape the consequences of impeachment through resignation ae obvious.

The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Josquius

Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?
██████
██████
██████

Barrister

Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 04:43:41 PM
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?

DC is more likely.

It's not entirely clear whether PR wants statehood or not.  It would mean many profound changes to life on the island (They'd have to pay income tax, but would also qualify for other benefits).
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2021, 04:43:41 PM
Thought to post in the Texas thread but didn't want to hijack....
There going to be any movement on Puerto Rico statehood with Biden?

That probably depends to a great extent on the people of Puerto Rico wanting statehood.

Josquius

They voted yes on a referendum last year iirc?
██████
██████
██████

Admiral Yi

Shoot, my bad.  I thought the most recent was the three way split.