Impeachment - Revision history

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:30, 30 January 2021

2021-01-30T16:30:13Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 14:18, 30 January 2021

2021-01-30T14:18:48Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 21:05, 26 January 2021

2021-01-26T21:05:07Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 15:48, 25 January 2021

2021-01-25T15:48:51Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 02:32, 24 January 2021

2021-01-24T02:32:10Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 02:15, 24 January 2021

2021-01-24T02:15:26Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 00:15, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T00:15:05Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 00:10, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T00:10:26Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:26, 18 January 2021

2021-01-18T16:26:10Z

Rasmusen p1vaim at 16:25, 18 January 2021

2021-01-18T16:25:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 30 January 2021
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Another interesting consideration is that an ex-President does not have the White House legal counsel or the Justice Department to help defend himself. Or does he? It would be odd, since there is a new President who is their boss. The new President should really volunteer the resources for the old one, though.		Another interesting consideration is that an ex-President does not have the White House legal counsel or the Justice Department to help defend himself. Or does he? It would be odd, since there is a new President who is their boss. The new President should really volunteer the resources for the old one, though.

		+	In all of this, remember that when we're discussing impeachment after someone has left office, we only have to be concerned with offenses that are impeachable but not criminal. Criminal offenses can be left to the normal course of criminal justice. If an official stabs someone, he can be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. If he has not resigned or been fired, however, he still holds his office, so he still needs to be impeached, uncontroversial though that vote might be. So we need both criminal law and impeachment for people still in office. Some people think that it is improper to impeach someone for an offense that is not a crime. That is completely wrong. The Constitution does not require that. And it is easy to imagine offenses that are impeachable but not criminal--- for example, the President ordering American troops to invade Canada because he wants to seize all the maple syrup there. That is not a crime, but surely everyone thinks it is beyond his powers and he should be impeached for it. Thus, we do not have to worry about a President committing crimes with impunity towards the end of his term because he thinks there won't be enough time to finish impeachment proceedings. There won't, but he can be tried and punished just like any other citizen. Note, too, that the purpose of impeachment in America (unlike the United Kingdom) is not to punish anyone. Rather, it is to protect the country from the offending officer, by removing him from office and preventing him from running again. That this result makes him feel bad, as punishments do, is incidental.
		+

	Notes follow.		Notes follow.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 30 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	The Bitly short link to this page is https://bit.ly/2YvJa0O.
		+
		+	Thesis: '''In the US, if impeachment proceedings begin against an officer, and he resigns, they may continue. If they begin, and his term runs out naturally, they may not. '''
		+
	Could impeachment proceedings start against me, Eric Rasmusen? I am not an officer of the United States, though I used to be one, I think. I was a GS-9, if memory serves me right, as a 21-year-old intern with the title Economist in summer 1980 in the Hyattsville "Center for Health Services Research". I wasn't appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, though, so I don't know if that counts as an "officer". But one might argue that though I can no longer be removed from office, impeachment matters because if convicted I would be ineligible for future appointment or election as, say, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and while I remain eligible I'm a threat to the nation. That argument is fallacious.		Could impeachment proceedings start against me, Eric Rasmusen? I am not an officer of the United States, though I used to be one, I think. I was a GS-9, if memory serves me right, as a 21-year-old intern with the title Economist in summer 1980 in the Hyattsville "Center for Health Services Research". I wasn't appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, though, so I don't know if that counts as an "officer". But one might argue that though I can no longer be removed from office, impeachment matters because if convicted I would be ineligible for future appointment or election as, say, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and while I remain eligible I'm a threat to the nation. That argument is fallacious.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 The only interesting case is that of a former  officer of the United States whose impeachment proceedings began while he was an officer, but did not finish while he was an officer. That is the situation with Donald Trump, former President Trump, now Mr. Trump.
-We should distinguish, though,  between the   case of a President who resigns in the middle of an impeachment and case of a President whose term ends naturally. A reasonable position might be that the proceedings continue if the President resigns in the middle of them, but expire if his regular term expires.  That is what I will write on here.
+We should distinguish, though,  between the   case of a President who resigns in the middle of an impeachment and case of a President whose term ends naturally. '''I suggest that impeachment  proceedings  can continue if the President resigns in the middle of them, but the proceedings expire if his regular term of office expires.'''
 It is not altogether ridiculous that a President be impeached after he is no longer President. It is ridiculous to being proceedings when somebody is no longer an officer of the United States, to be sure. This is a difference between the United States and England, where  impeachment is a criminal proceeding designed to punish someone the legislature cannot entrust to the justice of the King's courts, which are not independent. Thus, the example of Warren Hastings does not apply. But what if proceedings are begun when the person is an officer, but he resigns to avoid  being convicted and losing his ability to serve in the future, when the political climate has changed?  In such a case, it seems reasonable that we would not want his resignation to stop the proceedings.  That  was the case with  Governor Pa Ferguson in Texas in the 1920's or Secretary of War Belknap's impeachment.
- Trump's case is neither of these. He was impeached while President--twice-- but his term came to its natural end. Could the Senate then try him after his term expired? Note that if this is so, then the Senate could have a trial based on either impeachment--- the first, in 2020 on charges of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine, or the second, in 2021, on charges of inciting rebellion.  This is not a criminal proceeding, so double jeopardy does not apply.
+Trump's case is neither of these. He was impeached while President--twice-- but his term came to its natural end. Could the Senate then try him after his term expired? Note that if this is so, then the Senate could have a trial based on either impeachment--- the first, in 2020 on charges of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine, or the second, in 2021, on charges of inciting rebellion.  This is not a criminal proceeding, so double jeopardy does not apply.
-An interesting consideration is that an ex-President does not have the White House legal counsel or the Justice Department to help defend himself. Or does he?  It would be odd, since there is a new President who is their boss.  The new President should really volunteer the resources for the old one, though.
+It is stretching the language of the Constitution to say that someone who is not President can be impeached, but there's a reasonableness argument for doing that stretching if the reason the person is no longer President is that he's trying to escape impeachment. There are actually legal doctrines to this effect. I get them confused unless I look carefully, but I think '''estoppel'''  might apply. Also,  it is actually questionable whether a President can legally resign, even though it's been done and although inferior officers can resign. The Constitution doesn't allow it, does it?  ANd if you do something illegal, an equity maxim says '''you are not allowed to benefit from your own unlawful behavior in legal procedure,''' I think. The murderous heir rule is a statutory version of this (was it in common law too?)  Behind all of this is the commonsense notion that you can't squirm out of punishment by manipulating the system unlesst he system's rules really allow you to. Some legal research could make this precise. But it differentiates Trump's case: '''he did not resign to interrupt impeachment proceedings.'''
@@ Line 17: / Line 21: @@
 ==Pa Ferguson's Impeachment in Texas==
 [https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter  Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial.  He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson  against the KKK's candidate] and won.
 ==Secretary of War Belknap's Impeachment==
 {{Quotation|
 When Belknap's case was exhibited to the Senate by the Housemanagers, it was framed as articles of impeachment against "WilliamW. Belknap, late Secretary of War."' That first sentence wouldprove the entirety of the issue for a minority, but a determinativenumber, of senators.
@@ Line 27: / Line 29: @@
-==References==
+==Citations to Investigate==
+[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600627.| "Review: Impeachment, Attainder, and a True Constitutional Crisis: Lessons from the Strafford Trial,"]    Craig S. Lerner,  ''The University of Chicago Law Review, '' Autumn, 2002, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 2057-2101 .
 --------------------------------------------------

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-An interesting consideration is that an ex-President does not have the White House legal counsel or the Justice Department to help defend himself. Or does he?  It would be odd, since there is a new President who is their boss.  The new President should really volunteer the resources for the old one, though.
+Could impeachment proceedings start against me, Eric Rasmusen?  I am not an officer of the United States, though I used to be one, I think. I was  a GS-9, if memory serves me right, as a 21-year-old intern  with the title Economist in  summer 1980 in  the Hyattsville "Center for Health Services Research".  I wasn't appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, though, so I don't know if that counts as an "officer". But one might  argue that though I can no longer be removed from office, impeachment matters because if convicted I would be ineligible for future appointment or election  as, say, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and while I remain eligible I'm a threat to the nation. That argument is fallacious.
-We should perhaps distinguish between the two cases of a President who resigns in the middle of an impeachment and the President whose term ends naturally. A reasonable position might be that the proceedings continue if the President resigns in the middle of them, but expire if his regular term expires. I might write on this.
+ Trump's case is neither of these. He was impeached while President--twice-- but his term came to its natural end. Could the Senate then try him after his term expired? Note that if this is so, then the Senate could have a trial based on either impeachment--- the first, in 2020 on charges of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine, or the second, in 2021, on charges of inciting rebellion.  This is not a criminal proceeding, so double jeopardy does not apply.
-It is not altogether ridiculous that a President be impeached after he is no longer President. It is ridiculous to being proceedings when somebody is no longer an officer of the United States, to be sure. This is a difference between the United States and England, where  impeachment is a criminal proceeding designed to punish someone the legislature cannot entrust to the justice of the King's courts, which are not independent. Thus, the example of Warren Hastings does not apply. But what if proceedings are begun when the person is an officer, but he resigns to avoid  being convicted and losing his ability to serve in the future, when the political climate has changed?  In such a case, it seems reasonable that we would not want his resignation to stop the proceedings.  That  was the case with  Governor Pa Ferguson in Texas in the 1920's.  Trump's case is neither of these. He was impeached while President--twice-- but his term came to its natural end. Could the Senate then try him after his term expired? Note that if this is so, then the Senate could have a trial based on either impeachment--- the first, in 2020 on charges of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine, or the second, in 2021, on charges of inciting rebellion.  This is not a criminal proceeding, so double jeopardy does not apply.
+An interesting consideration is that an ex-President does not have the White House legal counsel or the Justice Department to help defend himself. Or does he?  It would be odd, since there is a new President who is their boss.  The new President should really volunteer the resources for the old one, though.
 ==Pa Ferguson's Impeachment in Texas==
 [https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter  Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial.  He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson  against the KKK's candidate] and won.
 {{Quotation|

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 We should perhaps distinguish between the two cases of a President who resigns in the middle of an impeachment and the President whose term ends naturally. A reasonable position might be that the proceedings continue if the President resigns in the middle of them, but expire if his regular term expires. I might write on this.
------
+It is not altogether ridiculous that a President be impeached after he is no longer President. It is ridiculous to being proceedings when somebody is no longer an officer of the United States, to be sure. This is a difference between the United States and England, where  impeachment is a criminal proceeding designed to punish someone the legislature cannot entrust to the justice of the King's courts, which are not independent. Thus, the example of Warren Hastings does not apply. But what if proceedings are begun when the person is an officer, but he resigns to avoid  being convicted and losing his ability to serve in the future, when the political climate has changed?  In such a case, it seems reasonable that we would not want his resignation to stop the proceedings.  That  was the case with  Governor Pa Ferguson in Texas in the 1920's.  Trump's case is neither of these. He was impeached while President--twice-- but his term came to its natural end. Could the Senate then try him after his term expired? Note that if this is so, then the Senate could have a trial based on either impeachment--- the first, in 2020 on charges of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine, or the second, in 2021, on charges of inciting rebellion.  This is not a criminal proceeding, so double jeopardy does not apply.
 [https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter  Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial.  He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson  against the KKK's candidate] and won.
@@ Line 11: / Line 16: @@
-----
+==References==
-"Review: Impeachment, Attainder, and a True Constitutional Crisis: Lessons from the Strafford Trial,"    Craig S. LernerSource: ''The University of Chicago Law Review, '' Autumn, 2002, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 2057-2101  https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600627
 --------------------------------------------------

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter  Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial.  He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson  against the KKK's candidate] and won.
@@ Line 5: / Line 10: @@
 --Jonathan Turley, "Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a MadisonianDevice," Duke Law Journal 49, no. 1 (October 1999): 1-146   }}
 Review: Impeachment, Attainder, and a True Constitutional Crisis: Lessons from the Strafford Trial    Craig S. LernerSource: The University of Chicago Law Review, Autumn, 2002, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 2057-2101  https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600627

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 19 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial. He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson against the KKK's candidate] and won.		[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial. He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson against the KKK's candidate] and won.
		+
		+	Jonathan Turley, "Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a MadisonianDevice," Duke Law Journal 49, no. 1 (October 1999): 1-146
		+
		+	Review: Impeachment, Attainder, and a True Constitutional Crisis: Lessons from the Strafford Trial Craig S. LernerSource: The University of Chicago Law Review, Autumn, 2002, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 2057-2101 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600627

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, 18 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial. He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran against the KKK's candidate and won.	+	[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial. He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Ferguson against the KKK's candidate] and won.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 18 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it.	+	[https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox Ferguson v. Maddox], the Pa Ferguson Texas case from the 1920's, and the [https://lawliberty.org/impeachment-after-leaving-office/#.YAWFqwooq7w.twitter Impeachment After Leaving Office] article that discusses it. Ferguson resigned after his impeachment but before his Senate trial. He was impeached after he started a big fight with the President of the University of Texas. In 1924 he wanted to run again, but his wife, Ma Ferguson, ran in his place because the Texas Supreme Court ruled that his Senate trial was valid and disqualified him from office. She ran against the KKK's candidate and won.