Advocates for Donald Trump on Tuesday went further than arguing that there is an open case that precludes the accusation of former presidents. The question is not settled, although the weight of legal opinions contradicts the allegations of the Trump team.
Bruce Castor and David Schoen addressed the Senate on the first day of Trump’s trial after Democratic House of Representatives announced the opening of their case for conviction. Trump is accused of inciting the deadly siege of the US Capitol on January 6.
Democrats overcame a procedural hurdle when the Senate voted 56-44 to proceed with the trial, but they have a tough chance of winning the two-thirds majority needed to condemn Trump.
Look at the arguments:
Castor, Quote the Constitution: “Judgment in cases of indictment” – that is, “what we do” will not extend beyond removal from office. ” What is so difficult about it? Which of these words is unclear? … President Trump is no longer in office. The purpose of the Constitution has been achieved. He was removed by the voters. ”
The facts: In his opening speech, Castor ignored the Constitution’s full piece on the subject. The Constitution further provides a legal consequence of accusation: ‘Inability to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit among the United States’.
Democrats argue that the purpose of the indictment of a former president, who can no longer be removed from office because he left it, is to hold him responsible for the uprising and to try to prevent him from holding future office. .
Castor earlier in his remarks gave the fuller flavor of the passage, but ignored the issue of future disqualification in his summary of his argument.
Schoen, who is hearing a former president on a charge of indictment: ‘You’ve bought into a radical constitutional theory. … This is an insult to the Constitution. ”
The facts: Although Trump is indeed the first president to be tried after leaving office and making it a new legal area, it is not a ‘radical’ concept in legal circles.
Nothing in the Constitution expressly precludes an indictment for an official who is no longer in office. .
Belknap resigned before being charged, but the Senate still asserted its right to hold a trial, although it ultimately could not be convicted by a two-thirds vote. In contrast, Trump was charged while still in office; only his Senate hearing came after that.
The US Government’s Congress Research Service said in a January 15 report: ‘Although the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who have thoroughly researched the question have concluded that Congress has the power to extend process of indictment to officials who are no longer in office. ‘
The Constitution does not mention the conviction of a former president. It only says that the president and other officials will be removed from office on charges of and conviction for treason, bribery or ‘high crimes and offenses’.
Charles J. Cooper, a leading conservative constitutionalist, said in a Wall Street Journal report that “it contradicts the logic of indicating that the Senate is prohibited from prosecuting and convicting former officials.”
Laurence H. Tribe, professor of Harvard law, and others also wrote that the Constitution clearly envisioned former presidents in a Senate indictment. “If we come otherwise, the disqualification power will be completely erased from the text of the Constitution,” he wrote in The Washington Post.
If the Democrats call for enough votes to condemn Trump – 67 – the former president can then be banned by a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate of the future office.
You enable MPR news. Individual donations lie behind the clarity in our reporters’ reporting, stories that connect us, and conversations that offer perspectives. Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together.
Donate today. A gift of $ 17 makes a difference.