Lawfag here with a primer on muhimpeachement LAW - there are many misunderstandings - here is a review for the upcoming movie chapter…..
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 6
The Framers vested the Senate with the "sole Power to try Impeachments" because:
-
Senators would be better able to decide responsibly the most difficult of political questions.
-
The Senate rather than the judiciary because (The Federalist No. 65) a "numerous court" for the trial of impeachments - ie not just one or even a bank of judges. Also pointed out that the Senate is not bound by strict legal rules.
There are three special requirements for impeachment trials. 1. Senators be on Oath or Affirmation; 2 The Chief Justice shall preside (remember normally the VP presides but this would create a conflict of interest in the person to succeed upon removel) and 3. The vote must be by a "supermajority" of 2/3.
Naturally questions have arisen about Senate authority to try impeachments:
-
What is the Senate reqyuired to do upon impeachement? This is a very complex matter too much to go into detailed analysis here. Summary however is that it is probably the legal duty of the Senate to open a trial proceeding. Lawfag does not believe the Senate can refuse to do so. Remember they sit as a jury not a judge, although the Senate does decide maany issues that woukld normally be for the judge,. The parties to this trial are the House vs the POTUS and the Cheif Justice is the judge. So of one party did NOT want a trial they could make a motion to dismiss on legal and/or factual grounds and that would be decided by the Senate - presumably subject to review by the Justice. that is the only wasy lawfag sees a short proceeding and leads to the next question.
-
What is the Chief Justice's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings? There is no clear answer to this. In past cases the Justice excercised authority to decide certain questions, but in other case the Senate mad their own rulings. In President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, Chief Justice ruled on procedural questions and the Senate never challenged him.
-
A third question revolves around the rules and procedures the Senate must employ in impeachment trials. Again there is along history on this issue - the bottom line os the SCOTUS has confirmed that the Senate (and the House) have Constitutional authority to make and follow their own rules (much like with expulsion of Members previously posted by lawfag) They walk a line drawn by the principal of Separation of Powers - so even though they have full power over their own body, they can't do whatever they want IF it conflicts with the power of the other two branches. Thus the dance goes on……
BOTTIM LINE - they MUST conduct (or at least initiate) a trial and proceed with due respect for the Executive branch, due process, and so forth. Remember anons THE TURTLE just went on national TV and stated several times "We will do what the POTUS lawyers want" SO imo LOOK FOR THE REAL TRIAL Q suggested was "how to introduce evidence" NOT in a criminal case but in a PUBLI CISRCU to waken the nation - Media heads exploded LOL - SENATE WAS THE TARGET
Here is a link to the Senate rules and commentary for interestedfags
carry on frens…
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/6Rulesrevisionreport1986.pdf