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:
- 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."
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.
- 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?