The United States Constitution became operational on March 9, 1789. The framers had the foresight to realize that as the country grew and progressed there would be future situations and circumstances that the Constitution did not address, so provided for an amendment mechanism. It is a deliberately complex process to insure that frivolous changes to the Constitution would not be made.
There have been 27 amendments to date. The first ten amendments were proposed quickly and ratified in 1791, becoming the Bill of Rights. There were just four in the 1800s and 12 in the 1900s. In some instances where the Constitution is not clear the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay give some guidance as to the intent of the Constitution's framers. In cases where the Constitution is silent, the United States Supreme Court is charged with the responsibility of interpreting its intent.
The intent of the Constitution is now being hotly debated by Congress and constitutional lawyers regarding the impeachment and upcoming Senate trial of Donald Trump. At issue is whether the Constitution provides for the impeachment of a President after he has left office. As usual the two political parties are diametrically opposed on the issue.
Supreme Court nominees are proposed by politically affiliated Presidents and confirmed or denied by politically affiliated Senators. Thus Supreme Court judges have political biases that are reflected in their ideologically driven decisions, of which roughly only 35% are unanimous. The judges entrusted to interpret our Constitution do not agree on two-thirds of the cases argued before them. How can we expect them to correctly understand the intent of the Constitution? But perhaps the real question is, does it matter?
Why are we getting all hung up on what the Constitution may or may not say about impeaching a President after he has left office? The issue is, is Donald Trump complicit in the January 6th attack on the Capitol? That's it. This should be a judicial trial, not a Senate matter. The situation should be in the hands of the Department of Justice, specifically the office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, and if probable cause is found Trump should be charged and tried, no different than the hundreds of rioters are being treated. He is not immune from prosecution. In the 1981 case of Nixon vs Fitzgerald the Supreme Court ruled that, ".... the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office." The accusation of inciting an insurrection is certainly criminal.
Personally I have no interest in seeing Trump punished. In my opinion he is delusional and I don't see punishment changing that. I would however want to see him prevented from holding office again.
And then there is the issue of Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is the Congresswoman representing Georgia's 14th Congressional District, of which I am a resident. If Trump is delusional, what words could possibly describe Greene? I'm sure that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined someone with her attitude and mentality being elected to Congress, otherwise there would have been some provision to prevent nut jobs from serving in Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment