I think one of the whole problems with modern discussions about impeachment is that we think about it purely in criminal terms (or in political terms masked by criminal terms). Impeachment is also about the functionality and integrity of the office.
If a President wasn’t performing his functions, if he was never at the White House, if he was absent when critical decisions needed to be made, Congress would be well within its authority to impeach and remove such a President.
It’s been said quite frequently but it is the fact of the matter: high crimes and misdemeanors can be interpreted by Congress in any way they see fit. If the founders were concerned about political and non-criminal considerations leading to impeachment, they would have placed the power of impeachment in the mostly non-political and purely criminal realm of the Judicial Branch.
Instead, they placed it in Congress because they were more concerned about ensuring the mechanics for removing a President resided in the branch of government which would have to face political consequences at the ballot for its actions.
Ultimately, the question of impeachment doesn’t reside in legal language (though criminality is, of course, a heavy consideration). The question is a matter of fitness, legitimacy, and whether the office is being held in seriousness and with integrity.
Criminality has been used as a smokescreen far too often, especially in the case of Donald Trump. The fact of the matter is that if Trump’s actions are improper, if they degrade our nation’s international standing, and if they damage the people’s trust in their government, Congress has every right and authority to impeach and remove him on those grounds alone.
Yes, a President is chosen by the people in a national election and, all things being equal, he should only be removed in a similar matter. But, things are not equal. Things are terribly out of balance.
Congress is also elected by the voice of the people and is therefore imbued with equal legitimacy and authority (if not more so). It is not undemocratic to remove an elected official by the will of an elected body. That is the essence of constitutional republicanism. Though we forget to think of it in these terms, a President is neither elected by the direct voice of the people nor removed by the direct voice of the people. A President is elected by the Electoral College and is removed by Congress. Both of these entities have equal authority to speak as the voice of the people.
Additionally, Congress should not abdicate its role as a check on the presidency by nature of the proximity to a presidential election. Impeachment is not only a process for removal it is also a determination of fitness for office. Sidestepping the issue of Trump’s conduct to give “the will of the people a chance to decide” is a cop-out, given the express duties of Congress in such a matter. It is a willing disregard for the republican and federalist nature of our government.
We should be discussing Trump’s conduct. We should be considering whether it befits the office he holds and whether it has damaged our nation’s standing and the trust our citizens have in their government. Assigning a burden of proof that is purely criminal is a contraction of Congressional authority and duty.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020