Tag Archives: government

A Chief Justice’s Proper Presiding

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) tried to con Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, serving as Presiding Officer in the Senate’s trial of the House’s impeachment case, into taking an active role in that trial rather than honoring his duty as impartial presider.

Schumer proposed that, should the Senate vote regarding calling witnesses end in a tie, Roberts should exercise his authority as Presiding Officer to cast a tie-breaking vote. After all, he said, Chief Justice Samuel Chase did that during the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson 150+ years ago.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as presiding officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?

Which Roberts promptly dismissed as concerning trivial matters.

The one concerned a motion to adjourn. The other concerned a motion to close deliberations. I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties.

Then he closed out the matter.

If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion—the normal rule is that the motion fails.
I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.

An excellent shut-down of the Minority Leader cynical “inquiry.”

Green Card Residency

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote (I’m tempted to say “party line vote,” but CJ Roberts might demur were he not otherwise occupied at the moment), lifted a district court’s stay blocking implementation of the Trump administration’s public charge immigration rule. The rule blocks permanent residency and allows for denial of entry visas in the first place for those in our nation or entering it if they are considered likely to rely on our welfare programs. The stay removal allows the rule to be enforced while the underlying case wends its way through the courts.

Europe, exemplified by Deutsche Welle, is dismayed (even as many of the EU’s members demur from accepting immigrants making their passage from northern Africa).  It’s a harsher immigration law.  It significantly expands the criteria for denying legal residency. It disproportionately put[s] permanent residency out of reach for low-income applicants from developing countries.

The stay-issuing district judge, George Daniels, is in a high dudgeon, too. He wrote in his ruling that the rule was repugnant to the American Dream, and was a policy of exclusion in search of justification.

Last things first. The district judge was—and is—completely out of line in his ruling. His task, his duty as an American judge, is to find the law underlying the rule, or the rule itself, unconstitutional or, failing that, to apply the underlying law and the rule as they are written. Full stop.

Our Constitution and the judge’s oath of office, which enjoins him to uphold our Constitution, bar him from implementing his personal opinion or his personal view of what’s good or bad for our society.

Regarding the alleged disproportional impact on the poor or on third-world applicants, that may or may not be true. However, as is the case with all nations, those entering ours are expected to be beneficial to our nation, not drains on it.

On the beef that the rule makes it harder for an entrant to gain legal residency, that’s the point of borders. No one has an inherent right to come into another nation without that nation’s prior permission. No nation has an inherent obligation to grant that permission. Entry requirements and entrants are solely at the discretion of that nation.

Nor have we any obligation to extend the benefits of our already overstretched (and too inefficiently run) welfare programs to noncitizens. Such an extended overstretch can only work to the detriment of our citizens.

Political Revenge

Posted on by
Reply

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the…Warren.

And so she intends. Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) has issued her administration transition and “anti-corruption” document. She even intends to establish a “Justice Department Task Force” to put a veneer on her venal program of political vengeance. Ex-President Barack Obama (D) and his Attorney General Eric “Wing Man” Holder were pikers.  So was their kind-of distant ancestor, Joe McCarthy.

She’s already personally threatening Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser Kellyanne Conway, and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson. Who knows how far she’ll go with her already out-of-control rage?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?

Warren’s document makes her attitude plain.

This will be no ordinary transition between administrations….

Keep this in mind in November.

“The ‘Corrupt Purposes’ Impeachment”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal offered some thoughts along these lines re the current impeachment trial.

Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office.

“Corrupt Purposes,” though, isn’t the only failure of this so-called impeachment that’s being tried in the Senate.  Just as pernicious, certainly far more dangerous, is Progressive-Democrats’ repeated (including Wednesday afternoon by Jerry Nadler in his presentation before the Senate) demand that Trump produce documents, witnesses to prove his innocence.

This attacks the very core of American jurisprudence; it sets every American, not just a Party-hated President, at direct, personal risk.

It’s dismaying that the NLMSM, not the WSJ alone, wholly ignores this unAmerican attack on one of our foundational principles.

Some Thoughts on Impeachment and Trial

Posted on by
Reply

Some thoughts. Alan Dershowitz has some, and so do I. His last is irrelevant to the present context; I’ve included it solely for completeness’ sake. The core of the present context is in his (3 of 3) tweet.

(1 of 3) To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago, I am correct today. During the Clinton impeachment, the issue was not whether a technical crime was required, because he was charged with perjury.
(2 of 3) Therefore, I didn’t research the issue; I relied on the academic consensus that a crime was not required. In Trump impeachment, on the other hand, that is the critical issue, because abuse of power and obstruction of congress are neither crimes nor criminal-like behavior.
(3 of 3) So I have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime with all the elements may not be required, criminal-like behavior akin to treason and bribery is required.
(3 of 3 cont) To the extent therefore that my 1998 off-the-cuff interview statement suggested the opposite, I retract it. Scholars learn to adapt and even change old views as they do more research.

I disagree concerning whether criminal-like behavior is sufficient; behavior must actually be criminal to justify, legally as opposed to politically, impeachment and removal from office.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That’s a clear statement of the requirement for overt criminal behavior in order to justify the Article I, Sections 2 and 3 impeachment and trial procedure.

And yet, the President (or Vice President or any civil Officers) cannot be criminally convicted of anything. The impeachment/trial procedure under our Constitution is, explicitly, not a criminal proceeding:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification….

Guilt and acquittal simply are meaningless concepts here.

This goes further to a central point of the matter that keeps getting missed by the Republicans: Progressive-Democrats and their NLMSM keep bleating about adding witnesses, evidence, etc throughout the course of the Senate’s trial “like any other trial,” and “what kind of a trial is it without witnesses?” They keep conflating the Senate’s portion of the impeachment/trial procedure with an Article III court (or State court) trial.

In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other. The impeachment/trial procedure requires a crime in order to remove a President from office, but to convict him of that crime, he has to be haled into an Article III court for a separate, actually criminal, trial.

“Criminal-like” isn’t enough: looking, quacking, walking like a duck is insufficient here.

On the other hand, from a purely political, raw power perspective, Gerald Ford was right, and criminality becomes irrelevant: impeachable (and subsequent removal from office) is whatever Congress says it is. Which goes to the center of us being governed by less than angels. Those who have the power to make our laws also have the power to ignore their own lawlessness.

(Another central point that keeps getting missed is the Progressive-Democrats’ constant demand that the President provide his own evidence to prove his innocence. The Republican legal team and Republicans generally, keep not disputing that unAmerican contention. Kellyanne Conway finally started approaching this, tangentially, in a Monday night interview.)