Richardcyoung.com

The Online Home of Author and Investor, Dick Young

  • Home
  • How We Are Different
  • About Us
    • Foundation Principles
    • Contributors
  • Investing
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
  • Your Survival Guy
  • The Great Reset
  • COVID-19
  • My Rifles
  • Dividends and Compounding
  • Your Security
  • The Swiss Way
  • Dick Young
  • Debbie Young
  • Key West
  • Paris
  • Dick’s R&B Top 100
  • Liberty & Freedom Map
  • Bank Credit & Money
  • Your Survival Guy’s Super States
  • NNT & Cholesterol
  • Work to Make Money/Invest to Save Money
  • Your Health
  • Ron Paul
  • US Treasury Yield Curve

Impeaching an Ex-President is Unconstitutional

January 22, 2021 By The Editors

President Donald J. Trump listens and responds to questions from members of the press Tuesday, April 7, 2020, in the James S. Brady White House Press Briefing Room. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

Bob Levy of the Cato Institute explains here why impeaching an ex-president is unconstitutional. He writes:

Former judge Michael Luttig has argued correctly that the Constitution refers to impeachment of the president, not the ex‐​president. Article II, section 4 states provides that “The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Accordingly, once a person is no longer president, he can’t be impeached or convicted. Our federal government has only those powers enumerated in the Constitution; it does not have the power to impeach a former president.

On the other hand, several legal experts have pointed to Article I, section 3, where the Constitution states that “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.” Those experts note further that disqualification is a separate vote — requiring only a majority of the Senate, not the two‐​thirds required for conviction and removal. Accordingly, the disqualification vote could occur after the president had already been removed.

Ergo, the entirety of the impeachment process, expanded to include disqualification, could apply to an ex‐​president. Can those two provisions be reconciled? First, nothing in the Constitution requires that conviction and removal occur simultaneously. The Senate could certainly vote to convict while declaring that removal would occur on a specified future date. Then, between the date of conviction and the date of removal, the Senate could decide whether to disqualify the president from holding future office, in which case the three‐​stage process – impeachment, conviction, disqualification – would be complete prior to removal. None of the stages would affect an ex‐​president, thereby complying with both of the Articles cited above.

Second, the two Articles can be reconciled even if the disqualification vote occurs post‐​removal. Article II expressly refers to impeachment and conviction of “The President.” By contrast, Article I refers to disqualification, but limits that remedy to someone who is subject to “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment,” which could include an ex‐​president. Therefore, if the president is impeached and convicted in accordance with Article II, he might subsequently – post‐​removal, as an ex‐​president – be disqualified in accordance with Article I.

Of course, the president could avoid removal and disqualification if he resigned prior to conviction. In that event, if he had committed a crime, he might still be indicted after leaving office. And the voters might determine that his behavior disqualified him from future office.

Here are my conclusions: (1) Per Article II, President Trump was vulnerable to impeachment and conviction while in office. (2) Per Article II, he is not subject to impeachment and conviction post‐​presidency. (3) Per Article I, if he had been impeached and convicted while in office, ex‐​President Trump would still be at risk of disqualification. As we know, Trump was impeached but not convicted. In my view, he may not now be constitutionally convicted or disqualified.

Suppose, however, he is unconstitutionally convicted? What redress is available? The Supreme Court might be reluctant to get involved because impeachment is a political question explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the legislative branch. Perhaps, however, while not inclined to rule on matters that arise during an impeachment, the Court would nonetheless be willing to address the threshold question of what counts as a legitimate impeachment. Otherwise, if Trump were once again to become a presidential candidate, despite the Senate’s vote to disqualify him, the Court might then opine on litigation initiated by one or more of his would‐​be opponents.

Related Posts

  • Tucker Interviews President Trump
  • What it Means When Two Ex-Presidents Attack President Trump
  • President Donald Trump Cannot be Indicted
  • President Trump Does the Impossible
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
The Editors
Latest posts by The Editors (see all)
  • CARLSON: “This Is Not the Way Civilized Countries Operate” - August 16, 2022
  • Breaking News: Ukrainian HIMARS Level Wagner Group Base - August 16, 2022
  • WAGNER GROUP: Criminals and Undesirables Bolstering Russia’s Forces in Ukraine? - August 16, 2022

Dick Young’s Must Reads

  • How Can You Maximize Natural Immunity to Viruses?
  • Being Fully American Means Americans First
  • Meet Me at Freddy’s June 2022
  • 751 “No-Go” Zones in France
  • The Worst President in American History, Part I
  • TROJAN HORSE: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” is Critical Race Theory in Disguise
  • DEATH SPIRAL: Crime Soars in Democrats’ #DEFUNDTHEPOLICE Cities
  • “An Epic Struggle Over the Definition of America”
  • America’s States Rights Revolution
  • “The Goal”: Strong Families, Resilient Faith, Thriving Middle Class.

Our Most Popular Posts

  • CDC Admits It Was All A Lie
  • BECK: The Democrats' Dangerous FBI Raid Endgame
  • If It Smells Fishy … ?
  • DEMOCRATS PLAY DIRTY: Megynn Kelly Calls Bulls#$t on "Classified Documents" Story
  • Who Benefits from and Orchestrated the Trump Raid?
  • The Great Jon Rappoport on Kari Lake
  • Our Commander-in-Chief Fumbles On
  • WATCH: Doocy Breaks Jean-Pierre with Trump Raid Questions "No Comment"
  • Thanks to America's Worst President
  • DOJ Career Officers Disgusted by Garland's Political Raid on Trump

Disclosure

RSS Youngresearch.com

  • DEVASTATION: Tsunami Simulation Study Frightens Coastal Dwellers
  • Fear is a Terrible Emotion: How You Deal with It MATTERS
  • The Victims of a Decade of Easy Money
  • What Happens if the Chinese Blockade Taiwan?
  • Buying A Boat: Who’s Looking Out for You?
  • Is It Time to Talk About the Defects of Index Funds Now?
  • Your Survival Guy’s Favorite Number is 72: Here’s Why
  • Disney Catches Netflix in Streaming Wars
  • PRIMARY RESULTS: Pro-Trump Candidates Clean Up
  • Prices for Electric Vehicles Going UP

The Claremont Institute: Protecting the American Way of Life

Thanks to America’s Worst President

The IRS’s Hassle Tax: Spend More on Compliance

DEVASTATION: Tsunami Simulation Study Frightens Coastal Dwellers

ROBERTS: “Today Education Is a Form of Brainwashing”

CARLSON: “This Is Not the Way Civilized Countries Operate”

Copyright © 2022 | Terms & Conditions | About Us | Dick Young | Archives