Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili KujisalimishaPost by Joe BernsteinPost by Ninapenda JibiniDoesn't really change the fact that impeachment is inherently a
purely political process.
Inherently?
Yes. Inherently. Read the Federalist Paper discussion of it.
[judges - amendment accepted]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili KujisalimishaPost by Joe BernsteinImpeachments *of presidents*, admittedly, have all been just
about purely political.
And cannot be otherwise. The framers knew that.
See, I don't see that "purely", or anything equivalent to it, in
<Federalist> 65 and 66. Hamilton *considered* impeachment entirely
in a political light, but didn't thereby say, for example, that it
couldn't be seen in a journalistic light, say.
"The subjects of [the impeachment power's] jurisdiction are those
offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in
other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They
are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated
POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the
society itself."
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili KujisalimishaPost by Joe BernsteinIf, next year, President X went and got an automatic rifle and
gunned down everyone sleeping at some military base, maybe then
his impeachment would be aimed at criminal prosecution, but so
far, we haven't had a president crazy enough to break a law we
really care about enforcing. Still, this example means I don't
think [snip gratuitous insult]
your "inherently" even applies to impeachments of
presidents.
The people who wrote the Constitution do not agree with you. They
do agree with me.
"The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon
impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem
and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will
still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course
of law."
Actually, another part of the same number I've been quoting (65) may
have been wise, but still turned out wrong. He's comparing the
Senate and the Supreme Court for the gravity and dignity of each:
"What other body [than the Senate] 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?
"Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this
description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that
tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of
fortitude ... and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would
possess the degree of credit and authority" [to refuse to convict when
the 'people's House' brought charges].
As things turned out, in the 1790s both institutions were pretty much
jokes, members coming and going every year because the jobs were so
unimpressive. But at the very beginning of the 19th century John
Marshall got the Supreme Court a pride in office that has sustained
it ever since. It took until about the 1840s for the examples set by
Webster, Clay and Calhoun to settle in at the Senate.
Anyway, though. I'm not objecting to "purely political" as a
description of the impeachments of presidents we've seen so far. And
I'm not objecting to "inherently political" as a description of the
impeachment of presidents in general. But I am objecting to
"inherently purely political".
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>