An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional

[babylonsister]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/impeachment-trial-without-witnesses-would-be-unconstitutional/605332/?fbclid=IwAR3q-bijeLIShzFRWM5cXNdasjtEeWYCtuCPNhwV3BuT_6_JfsF3QW3_7Qk

The Battle for the Constitution
An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional
And a resulting acquittal verdict would present Americans with something far worse than a constitutional crisis.
6:00 AM ET
Paul Savoy

snip//

If the impeachment process conducted by the Senate is unconstitutional, the unavailability of either criminal prosecution or a legitimate impeachment trial as a means of presidential accountability, according to the OLC opinion’s own reasoning, would “subvert the important interest in maintaining ‘the rule of law.’”

An unconstitutional verdict of acquittal would present Americans with something far worse than a constitutional crisis. The nation will have blundered its way into creating an accidental autocracy governed by a president who, even if not reelected, would remain in office until January 20, 2021, beyond the reach of the rule of law.

“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins,” John Locke cautioned in his Two Treatises of Government. This is how autocracy comes to America: not with a declaration of martial law and tanks in the street, but by a roll-call vote in the Senate whipped by the leader of the Senate in violation of the Constitution.

If on the day the Senate returns its verdict, history records the failure to convict the president following a trial without witnesses, that will be the day the rule of law dies in America. The courts will remain open for business. Congress will be in session. Citizens will still be able to vote. And a free press will continue to launch withering attacks on President Trump. But the American people will no longer be living in a constitutional democracy.


This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. The threats to Democracy are real, but article does not make a case for unconstitutional trial

I see no evidence that this trial is unconstitutional; the Constitution is mute on the process of impeachment trials, only guided by the clause stating the senate makes its own rules.

To be sure, an impeachment trial without witnesses breaks with all prior precedent, but this in and of itself does not establish unconstitutionality.

[onenote]

2. The article relies on a concurring opinion in Nixon v. US and ignores the majority opinion

Which makes it a less than convincing argument.

[Sherman A1]

3. I fail to understand how not having witnessed questions the constitutionality of the process

It would certainly be much better and better informed, but unconstitutional is a huge stretch to make with this argument.

[Wounded Bear]

4. The Constitution does not define the parameters of the trial...

but gives the Senate sole power to do the "trial."

We all hope that the American people rise up on the issue of fairness and punish the Repubs for running a sham trial, but "unconstitutional" is a legal reach.