As we all know, five days ago Rand Paul forced the Senate to consider whether an Impeachment of a former POTUS was Constitutional, and 44 of his GOP colleagues agreed with him that it wasn’t. That, in turn, caused Senate centrists like Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Tim Kaine to propose a Censure bill instead, one that would purport to prevent him from holding office in the future but which is itself Constitutionally questionable as to whether it could be enforced — and as I argue below, isn’t the obvious Constitutional remedy for a President who attempted a violent coup d’etat on his way out of office.
But back to Rand Paul’s point of order which was based on Jonathan Turley’s arguments which Turley first ran up the flagpole a week ago on the BBC. Turley, it will be remembered, is the Constitutional Law “expert” that proffered the argument, in Trump’s first Impeachment Trial, that an actual violation of the US Code must be included in the charges to past Constitutional muster — a POV that is so ludicrous (based on both the language of the Constitution, the contemporaneous commentary of the Founders, and of the Common Law principles that the Impeachment provisions are based on) as to be laughable, but it was nonetheless bought, hook line and sinker, by a GOP Senate desperate for cover. Oh, and the other day, Turley himself rescinded that argument! What a tool.
This time around, Turley has posited that the language of the Constitution is specific when it comes to the Impeachment process as it relates to a sitting President. And startlingly, in this case, Turley is correct, although he still misses the mark (unintentionally). Here’s the language he’s banking on, the bolded portion of Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 I’ve highlighted here:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
His commentary, which again is correct in this limited sense, is that the Framers used the term “the President,” which indicates that this portion of that sentence refers specifically to the unique conditions under which a sitting President may be Tried in the Senate for Impeachment. It’s a correct reading because if they had intended for ex-Presidents to be included in that formula (whereby the Chief Justice replaces the Vice President or Senate President Pro-Tempore in presiding over the Senate for the Trial), they would have phrased it:
“When a President of the United States...”
This is a valid point, but the ramifications of it are not what the GOP might have wished for. Indeed, if the Senate Democrats want to run with it, what flows from Turley’s accurate but blindered reasoning is that ex-Presidents fall into the category of “all subjects of Impeachment who are not sitting Presidents,” and therefore do not require the Chief Justice to supplant the Senate President as Presiding Officer in a Senate Trial. Kamala Harris Patrick Leahy, therefore, who was selected by the Senate for the job is the Presiding Officer who must rule over Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial, according to that reading of Clause 6.
But that’s not all, because here’s Clause 7 of Section 3, Article I:
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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Again, I’ve bolded the relevant wording which points out that the Framers were quite generous in their definition of whom is in jeopardy of Impeachment, and that set of public officials includes anyone who “hold(s) and enjoy(s) any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Think about that for a moment, with former Presidents in mind.
What happens when a Presidents leave office? Well, they currently get pensions for themselves and their spouses of about $250,000/year, along with:
-
Office Space and Staffing Allowances: Starting six months after a President leaves office, the General Services Administration (GSA) provides funding to establish, furnish, and staff an official office anywhere in the U.S.
-
Travel Expenses: Chief Executives and up to two staff members are reimbursed for up to $1 million in costs annually. Spouses of former Presidents also are eligible for up to $500,000 per year for security and official travel.
-
Health Benefits: Provided that they had been enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for at least five years, former Presidents are eligible for health annuities, similar to all federal employees. (Jimmy Carter is ineligible because he only served a single term and did not hold another federal position.)
-
Funerals: Presidents are guaranteed a ceremony with full honors and the option to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
-
Secret Service Protection: Presidents are eligible for lifetime protection. The related costs are classified.
(Note: that bullet list is was compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a Conservative outfit that brags on its website that they helped the GOP Congress and Trump fashion the 2017 tax cut, so this isn’t a Liberal slant on the official benefits that ex-Presidents enjoy.)
The upshot is that an ex-President does indeed “hold and enjoy and Office of Honor, Trust and (i.e., not “or”) Profit under the United States. Hell, his or her “official office” is “funded, established, furnished, and staffed by the GSA (i.e., it is “under the United States” as Clause 7 requires) according to that NTA description.
It can’t be any clearer: the Framers, in all their wisdom, provided very elegantly for the Impeachment of an ex President — and his or her trial in the Senate shall be presided over by the sitting Vice President of the United States of America the Senate President, being either the Vice President or the Senate President Pro-Tempore.
Oh, I almost forgot: that NTU bullet list above is directly followed by this little nugget:
Presidents who are removed from office through the impeachment process are no longer eligible for the pension and benefits provided in the Former Presidents Act. Lifetime Secret Service protections is provided under a separate law so this benefit would not be impacted by removal from office.
That right there, ladies and gents, is the rationale for Impeaching this vile seditionist bastard, and doing it right and with patriotic vigor. Allowing this traitor to use government assets, money and personnel to further his deranged tirades against democracy is lunacy itself.