Skip to main content

This is a short diary, intended to provoke a public debate on whether impeachment proceedings should begin against Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and Minority Leader of the United States Senate.

The crime: Violation of his Oath of Office.

The evidence is presented below the fold:

The evidence supporting impeachment of Sen. McConnell are three distinct facts:

  1. This item from The Hill, cited approvingly by the author of the blog and repeated by several other sources and which has not, as yet, been denied by the Senator:

"Specifically, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined an array of Republican lawmakers who feel we should examine whether to rescind all or part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to prevent some children born in the U.S. from being granted U.S. citizenship."

  1. The Oath of Office for United States Senators:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  1. The 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.

Note here that we are not talking about adding a new Constitutional amendment, which is a suggestion anyone (including a Senator) may make, What is being proposed is to permanently revoke and abrogate part of the existing Constitution. To actively work to subvert the Constitution as it currently exists is (I suggest)to be in violation of that part of the Oath which requires the oath-taker to "defend the Constitution of the United States."

Many other Republican Senators have supported either outright repeal of the 14th Amendment, or its abrogation in part; while I think these are dangerous sentiments, they are, however, only opinions - protected ones at that - and are not overt acts against the Constitution.

The Minority Leader goes further, however. He suggests "holding hearings" to explore the idea. As he is in a leadership role, his suggestion is an overt act against the Constitution. The convening of any such hearing would be an overt act in continuance of overt acts designed to nullify, attack, defeat, and damage the United States Constitution. If Sen. McConnell's suggestion is not itself a violation of his Oath of Office, then his plan to convene hearings in support of an attack on the existing Constitution certainly warrants his removal from office.

No Senator has ever been impeached; the closest ever to suffer that fate was Sen. Blount of Tennessee in 1797, whose impeachment trial was complicated by procedural matters and made moot by his expulsion by the Senate.  If it should be determined that Mr. McConnell's acts were significantly greater than those of Mr. Blount (who intended to incite Creek and Cherokee Indians to aid the British in conquering the Spanish territory of West Florida for his own financial gain) then the Senate should bypass expulsion and defer to the House for immediate impeachment proceedings.

What do you think?

Originally posted to GarySeven on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 01:50 PM PDT.

Poll

Should U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell be impeached for violation of his Oath of Office?

64%210 votes
9%32 votes
5%18 votes
4%14 votes
16%53 votes

| 327 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site