Mar 16, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Michael Bloomberg credited himself as having, through his donations, changed the majority of the House of Representatives to Democrat returning Nancy Pelosi to power. He said: “They talk[ed] about 40 Democrats” needed to return the House to power in 2018, “Twenty-one of those were people they [Bloomberg’s group] spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in, put Nancy Pelosi in charge, and gave the Congress the ability to control this President, I boug[ht]… I got them” (Dan Merica, “Bloomberg catches himself from saying he ‘bought’ House races in 2018,” CNN, February 25, 2020). Despite the rhetoric Democrats love the money provided by the rich.
No one should be able to purchase a seat in any election, state or federal. This must never be allowed to happen again. But it will happen again if not blocked by an amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “All election funding, outside a candidate’s personal wealth, in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
But Bloomberg is not alone in purchasing elections, for some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, the billionaire club, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing our elected officers from the White House down to local races. This happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the voting districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can we pretend any longer that we have a democratic republic?
In 2018 Both George Soros and Tom Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros' organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Soros and Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Both Soros and Steyer are California, not Florida, residents.
But what about billionaires buying their own political office, even the presidency, to the tune of half a billion as Bloomberg did? Such buyout is openly known. People do not like anyone purchasing elected office if known. But when Bloomberg purchased 21 House of Representatives seats in 2018 it was hidden until he bragged about it in the February 25, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential debate. If it did happened again we would suggest another constitutional amendment to limit such self funding.
Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word originates is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.
Why have we not stopped this? Because both political parties benefit from it. On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
As we have seen from Bloomberg, more funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Bloomberg flooded the airwaves. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money from outside his district, it would stop much influence peddling.
Under this amendment the Clinton Foundation monies could not be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Under this amendment no contribution could be made to influence any contest to which the contributor could not personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senators —not a large group of them.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 25, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most hold that since Richard M. Nixon resigned from office as President before the full House of Representatives could vote on the articles of impeachment, he therefore was not impeached. But they omit the House vote 12 days after he resigned.
There were two votes on impeachment by the full House of Representatives. The first on February 6, 1974, was a vote 410 for and 4 against, authorizing impeachment proceedings against Nixon which allowed the House Judiciary Committee to begin the formal inquiry. Talk of such had preceded this vote for several months. Thereafter, following six months of House inquiry that did not go well for Nixon, he resigned August 8, 1974 before the full House voted to actually impeach him based on the findings of their Judiciary Committee. So technically Nixon was not impeached. Although accused, which is what impeachment is, in the public mind there was no reason to proceed as removal from office was accomplished by Nixon’s resignation
But wait, that was not the view of the House of Representatives as a second vote was cast TO GIVE FINALITY TO THE LONG INQUIRY PROCESS. It followed twelve days later complete with a 528-paged report. Wikipedia reports: “On August 20, the House voted to accept the final Judiciary Committee report by a vote of 412 to 3, with Republican Earl Landgrebe, plus Democrats Otto Passman and Sonny Montgomery casting the only no votes. The 528‐page report, published on August 22, laid out in detail what it called the "clear and convincing evidence" against Nixon. It also contained a statement from the committee's Republican members who had originally opposed impeachment, stating for the record that Nixon had not been ‘hounded from office’ but rather had destroyed his own presidency through his patterns of deceit."
The second vote occurred after the months-long House inquiry and was the final vote of the House of Representatives—no different than any other House vote on impeachment except that Nixon had already resigned. So Richard Nixon was impeached, meaning charged, just as Andrew Johnson before him and those after.
Donald Trump, was not impeached by the House for a month after their vote as they refused to give finality to their work by passing their demand for a trial to the Senate. They had, in effect, dropped the charges. This, of course, subsequently changed when House Managers took their charges to the Senate and Trump, now impeached by the House, was acquitted by the Senate.
With Nixon they had not finished their work because the full House had not voted, that happened August 20, 1974 after his resignation. In this case, there was no need to try Nixon on the accusations in the Senate as he had already accomplished what a Senate conviction would, his removal from office.
So why are so many still ignorant of the Nixon impeachment vote—even college professors? Primarily because with Nixon removing himself the issue went away and the nation, so hurt by the Watergate Scandal, wanted to forget. Consequently The New York Times covered (buried) this previously headlined story on page 22.
It read: “Without a trace of fanfare or drama and without a word of debate, the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives formally ended today. It ended as it had begun 10 months ago. First, there was a private agreement among leaders of both parties about how to proceed. Then, the action was taken in the tried and true parliamentary language that the House uses day after day to conduct routine business.
“At 1:50 P.M., Representative Peter W. Rodino Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rose on the House floor and announced, ‘Mr. Speaker, I submit a privileged report pursuant to House Resolution 803.’ That resolution had given the committee the right to act as an agent of the House, with all of the House's constitutional authority, in investigating whether. former, President Richard M. Nixon should be impeached. The Speaker of the House, Representative Carl Albert, responded in the same words and the same barely audible voice that he has used hundreds of other times when committee chairmen filed routine reports….
“But this report is not routine,” The NY Times continued, “Running about 200,000 words, it sets out the evidence that the Judiciary Committee found warranted Mr. Nixon's impeachment, and removal from office. Had Mr. Nixon not resigned, this document would have formed the basis for the first House impeachment debate in more than a century….
“It is Important,” Representative Robert W. Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, a ranking Democrat on the committee, said afterward, and this is a major point, that “the impeachment matter not seem unresolved. Representative Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, the Democratic leader, offered a resolution commending the judiciary committee for its work and accepting its report.
“Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona, the, Republican leader, took the necessary parliamentary step of demanding a second, and, without debate, the resolution was approved by a vote of 412 to 3” (House Formally Concludes Inquiry Into Impeachment,” by David E. Rosenbaum, New York Times,Aug. 21, 1974, p. 22).
So Nixon was impeached by a vote of 412 to 3. The populous can be excused for their ignorance but college professors, facts checking services, news reporters, journalists and historians cannot.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 10, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Senator Rand Paul’s question to the House Managers in the impeachment question and answer phase of the proceedings against Donald Trump follows. “Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware, and how do you respond to, reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.”
Why is this the most important question of the about 100 asked? The campaign to impeach Donald Trump began “at the moment he was sworn in” (Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017). Hoax followed hoax until the present Ukrainian debacle resulting in the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal of President Trump. But the hoax perpetuators always walk away without consequence despite two notable victims—the Constitution and Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi knew what she was doing when she said, “He will be impeached forever.” Trump’s name will be listed forever in the history books with Johnson, Nixon and Clinton as having been impeached—all associated with wrong doing. When a very large segment of the population was so ignorant of the Constitution that they wondered why Trump was still president the day after being impeached by the House, the same will be so in the future. Ignorance rules. Impeachment means accused, not tried. Pelosi could not have done anything more harmful to Trump’s reputation with generations yet unborn and she knew it. Her name will be forgotten in the dust heap of history but Trump’s never will, primarily because of her.
Trump’s name has been defamed although no crime can actually be identified and certainly not one listed in the Constitution as impeachable. Trump can’t sue to recover it. He can never remove this defamation— acquittal only partially helps. This may be the best case in American history when the accused was not allowed to face his accuser in direct violation of the 5th Amendment requiring it.
Yet the individual most responsible for having placed this stain on Donald Trump walks the streets having irreparably hurt another but himself protected from disclosure because he called himself a whistleblower, although in no way does he fit the definition of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, and thus is not entitled to special protection. Without his complaint, based entirely upon hearsay as were 16 of the 18 House witnesses, the impeachment would have never resulted. He was billed by Adam Schiff as their strongest case but was disarmed when Trump declassified and published his conversation with the Ukrainian President.
Notice Senator Paul’s question did not use the term whistleblower. Said differently, “Congressman Schiff, how do you respond to reports that your employee and his friend Ciaramella, from a shared previous post in the NSC, worked together to plot the whistleblower leak to push the House into this impeachment charade before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?” And, “In refusing to identify the person you first brought to the public’s attention as key to the need of impeachment are you not hiding your connection as a fact witness in this plot to unseat an elected president?”
Chief Justice John Roberts without explanation, announced: "The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.” He did the same with a second and similar Paul question the next day. A presumption is that it contained the name of the so-called whistleblower. But how could he assume this—not from the question—unless this name was already DC common knowledge. In a town known for leaking like a sieve, it was. Only the public is denied knowing.
So John Roberts, by refusing only this question of a hundred, indirectly gave credence that one of the two names Senator Paul was asking Schiff about was the whistle-leaker. Since everyone already knew Shawn Misdo as a Schiff employee, then Eric Ciaramella is the man most responsible for the impeachment of Trump and the name forbidden by the Democratic Party media machine to name.
No other name is mentioned as being the infamous whistle leaker. The Internet is full of references to him some more credible than others. Real Clear Investigations observes that Ciaramella’s name has been an open secret in Washington D.C. His lawyers Mark S. Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj refuse to confirm or deny that he is. According to The Washington Post, the whistleblower is still working at the CIA, but has been provided security. Q followers identified him last September. He has been named by Rush Limbaugh, Eric Trump, and Rand Paul.
The Washington Examiner established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the NSC at the White House during the Obama administration working as point man on Ukraine issues with Vice President Joe Biden traveling with him to Ukraine on Air Force Two at least one of the six visits Biden made to Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked under leaker James Clapper.
It is time to reveal the name outside the DC beltway, of the one person that started the most recent of several impeachment parades, Eric Ciaramella. We insist that he be investigated thoroughly as an accomplice in the Biden Quid Pro Quo and as an accomplice with Adam Schiff in the Ukranian Hoax Coup to replace a president of the United States.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 3, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Although no president has been removed from office through impeachment conviction what would happen were Donald J. Trump the first? The Constitution is clear. He would be removed from office immediately and forbidden “to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” again. As a private citizen, without privilege due to executive office, he would be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” If the crime were serious enough he could go to prison like anyone else.
Vice President Mike Pence would be sworn into office as the 46th president. He would finish the Trump term and run for president in 2020. He would need to move fast. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution requires him to nominate a new vice president “who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”
Should Pence die, through natural causes or otherwise, prior to this confirmation vote, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be sworn into office as the 47th president of the United States and she would finish the Trump/Pence term and run for president in 2020. She would also immediately nominate a new vice president who would take office when confirmed by the majority in both Houses. The Democrats would have retrieved the White House without a popular or Electoral College vote.
Why is Adam Schiff, and others, allowed to lie without consequence? Yes, Schiff has a real problem with the truth. The Constitution is designed to protect him with good reason. If he is removed his congressional district is denied their choice of voice in the House of Representatives. Excepting “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), he and all Congressmen and Senators, are “privileged from Arrest during Attendance in the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same,” and, this is important, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Be grateful for this. It works both ways. Our lawmakers are free to express themselves without fear of any government retaliation, all information is free to get out.
That said, it is also true that most tire quickly of the lies or offensive behavior of those who cannot restrain themselves and cease empowering them with their support—notice the lack of interest in the impeachment proceedings. In an informed and vibrant elective such is challenged in the next election and a better option forwarded to take his place. The Constitutional process cleans out such. Granted in some districts constituents are not informed or vibrant and such remain in office forever. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi districts come to mind in addition to Adam Schiff.
But the Constitution deals with that too when extreme. “Each House may …. punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” The Constitution did not anticipate political parties and far too many vote by party, regardless of what their candidates do or say. As a result this check on lying or inappropriate behavior is largely tolerated because of political party.
So why shouldn’t the Senate have ANY additional witnesses beyond the 18 that already testified? (Yes 18! Schiff refuses to release the transcript of Michael Adkinson # 18, presumably it defends Trump.) Because it severely muddies the Constitution which is very clear that the House investigates and the Senate evaluates. The House, is supposed to fully investigate and cite the impeachable offenses BEFORE they vote. The Senate is not to do the work of the House as both bodies would do the same thing. It cannot call new witnesses but it could recall a witness previously called by the House if some point in their previous testimony needed clarification or having Adkinson testify again. Their call for new witnesses strongly suggests that they are still looking for a crime. Nor can the Senate add a new impeachable offense should a new witness, such as John Bolton, give them such.
The Mitt Romney’s in the Senate and the Democrats insisting upon additional witnesses would create a precedent for doing the work of the other body and forever searching for a crime that does not exist. The present clarity of the Constitution would be undermined. Both groups demonstrate constitutional illiteracy.
Why aren’t Obstruction of Justice and Obstruction of Congress impeachable offenses? Four reasons: 1) both are too vague therefore subject to varied interpretation and varied application, 2) most previous presidents did both, 3) neither is a crime, and 4) neither is in the class of High Crimes such as Treason or bribery. Even Quid-Pro-Quo, if proved, is not a crime or an impeachable offense. Actually obstruction of Congress is a legitimate separation of powers function of the Executive Branch.
The Constitution is non-partisan. The bar for impeachable offenses was made high and uncommon so that presidents had some immunity from mere disagreements. If Trump is removed from office for anything presently cited by the House, it would weaken future presidents to the point that they would not dare oppose or offend the majority in the House lest they have to spend most of their time warding off frivolous and multiple impeachment inquiries.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 20, 2020 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
We live under two political systems: one centered on foreign affairs, the other primarily domestic. It’s called Federalism—the two share power. Neither subservient or above the other and each with separate duties. Like a good marriage, a team.
Thomas Jefferson explained, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
The Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure the fire does not spread and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire contained. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which lists all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The states who created the federal government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” at the turn of the century because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? We would have had “brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed federal government refrained from its natural inclination to take more power, healthcare reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area of healthcare. Instead, they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all and called it Obamacare.
Since healthcare was, and is not yet, a listed authority of the federal government it necessitates an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring ratification by “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60% of the people did not want this, the Constitution would have protected us from what we know now was unsustainable.
To protect Federalism the Founders did two things. First, Senators were to be selected by state legislatures so the U. S. Senate would be protective of state concerns. All law required the approval of the House of Representatives—the peoples’ representatives—and the Senate—the states’ representatives. That is why we have two branches of government to make law—two perspectives. The Seventeenth Amendment, mandating that the people, rather than the state legislators, elect U. S. Senators, destroyed this protection. Senators are today simply glorified House members. State issues thereafter were left mostly unrepresented—thus unprotected—on the federal level.
Second, the structure of the U. S. Constitution listed and defined federal power Article I, Section 8, leaving all power not specifically listed with the states as per the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Progressive (socialist) Movement of the early 20th Century wrecked havoc on Federalism. The 16th Amendment, removing the previous constitutional taxing requirements based upon “apportionment among the several States “ and “census or enumeration,” to simply incomes, which could be raised arbitrarily at will. This left the federal government with unlimited resources to spend and expand—feeding its natural tendency to grow.
It used this excess to bribe states, counties, and cities to perform functions not listed in the Constitution, like the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit of the Ford and Carter Administrations, which funding later could be denied if states refused to comply. Consequently states became addicted to federal money making it near impossible for them to “just say no” to federal takeover in their domestic dominion. A third of their resources come from the federal government.
Federal courts have amplified federal law by a twisted interpretation of the poorly constructed Amendment 14, also to the detriment of Federalism. Amendment 18, repealed by Amendment 21, openly invited the federal government to decide approved beverages for us and then from there to approved drugs; all matters constitutionally left entirely to state jurisdiction.
Failure to preserve Federalism has cost us much liberty, most notably limited government. Lawmakers totally ignore both the listed areas of government (Article I, Sec. 8) and Amendment 10. State legislators have no influence in the U.S. Senate, once designed to protect them. States are bribed into compliance and now are addicted to federal handouts. They have become mostly administrative agents of the federal government without immunity to federal intrusion nor will to use nullification to block unconstitutional law. And we are excessively taxed.
We do not need an Article V constitutional convention to restore Federalism, just more lawmakers who understand the Constitution as written and will adhere to it, especially in the areas specified above. Now is the time to find and elevate them.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Dec 31, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a college professor teaching the Constitution for forty years I am disturbed when those in power demonstrate constitutional illiteracy. Such is the time in which we live.
Impeachment means accused. Three presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were impeached (accused), none were removed from office in a subsequent Senate trial. Nixon removed himself by resigning, the other two continued in office filling their terms.
The House alone formulates the charges (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cla. 5) which must be treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II, Sec. 4). Constitutionally no other charges are impeachable. The House cannot make up any offense that is not clearly one of these as in “obstruction of justice” or “obstruction of Congress.” “The Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments” and the Chief Justice presides (Art. I Sec. 3, Cla. 6). The Senate cannot add to the list of charges. Constitutionally simple and practiced the last 231 years until now.
If House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its listed charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. Trump is, in effect, not charged because it is the only body constitutionally allowed to bring charges.. The accused cannot be said to have been impeached. The charges are effectively dropped. The moment that House leadership passes the baton to the Senate, Trump will join the others afore mentioned as having been accused (impeached) and will finish his term in office unless the Senate votes to remove him which has never happened to any president. It would be unconstitutional for the Senate to go into House chambers and, in effect, take the impeachment baton from them.
Nancy Pelosi, had no authority to turn the accusation process, normally done by the whole House, into the appearance of a trial in two House committees—which she did. It confused voters, “If tried and convicted, why is Trump still president?”
The founders wanted one body to accuse, a separate body to try. Any crime by a president is a crime against the people, thus the larger numbered House and more frequently elected, should be the one listing the accusations. This is why the House of Representative has “sole Power of Impeachment (Art. 1, Sec.2, Cla. 5), meaning initiating the accusing process.
Why was the House purposely forbidden doing more than accuse? Alexander Hamilton, the frequently cited founder of the Democratic Party, understood the greater emotion and passions of this body which made it the perfect body to originate the complaints but not to deliberate them. He wrote in The Federalist Papers #65, they would be “too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny”—think Chairmen Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. Remember Democratic leaders were calling for the impeachment of Trump before he was inaugurated and thereafter have unsuccessfully searched for a crime.
Hamilton prophetically continued, “in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Remember in the House “trial” the president, his lawyers, and Republican colleagues were excluded due process, even calling witnesses.
Why was the Senate, with six-year terms rather than two and then elected by their state legislature, thought by the Constitutional Convention to be “the most fit depositary of this important trust?” Because, Hamilton explained, it was “least hasty in condemning” and “will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”
Hamilton asked: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?” The Senate is not so emotionally charged as is the more frequently elected House, reason can prevail. Notice the Democrats cannot wait 10 months for the people to vote again so emotionally charged are they as exemplified by Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn reportedly saying, “Give the President a fair trial, then hang him.”
Still, Hamilton warned, “it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction [political party] will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, not satisfied with the two House charges—neither a crime or listed in the Constitution as impeachable offenses—remains in search of a crime, forever demanding more witnesses. Even if found the Senate cannot constitutionally add to the list of accusations given it by the House.
Again, if House leadership chooses to discontinue the impeachment process by not passing its charges to the Senate—even after a positive vote on the charges was taken—it has not finished its process. The charges in effect are dropped by the only body constitutionally empowered to bring charges. It has stopped the process and the accused, President Trump, cannot be said to have been impeached because the charges were dropped.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
