Just before 12:20 p.m., President Biden official canceled the Trump administration ban on individuals undergoing transgender transformation from serving in the military — with a stroke of the pen, Biden allowed individuals who needed daily medical care, and were therefore unfit for deployment, to be on the military payroll.
Though his order effectively weakened the military, the hallmark of the Biden Administration would be the impeachment of a former president, shown to be clearly unconstitutional by the failure of the Chief Justice to preside. When a CNN reporter attempted to question Biden about whether impeachment would imperil his agenda, Biden did not answer. This was not a crime he was inclined to boast of.
When the Constitution or any legal mandate says "shall", qualified lawyers and judges understand that to be an absolute condition. And while other impeachment are flexible, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution is clear about any action against a PRESIDENT being overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- as opposed to a Senate President pro tem acting as both judge and jurist.
Because impeachment is an act of removal from office, the Constitutional action only applies to a sitting President of one who has not already been legally removed from office.
One 3 November, Trump was legally removed, as later affirmed by the Electoral College, and, at noon on 20 January the Senate lost its Constitutional right to hold an impeachment trial. Should that change, every former president can be tried, convicted, and lose all their rights of privileges earned by once holding that office. Richard Nixon could be tried in absentia, as could both George H W and George W Bush. Even Abraham Lincoln could be tried for his Emancipation Proclamation, which was issued when it was still constitutional to own slaves -- a legal fact which overshadows any retroactive moral assertion, even if that assertion is now the legal fact.
Just months after the new Vice President, Kamala Harris, organized to pay the bail for rioters who violently attached and destroyed, speaking on the Senate floor for the House Managers, Representative Jamie Raskin would assert that Trump's exercise of free speech and a call to the public to voice their views, had been an act where “Donald John Trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the United States.”
Even if it could be factually demonstrated to be true, the proper and lawful legal venue to adjudicate the charge remained the civil court and not the floor of the Senate. But obedience to the Constitution and due process is not something we would expect from the representative of a "Kangaroo Court" that issues an indictment, votes impeachment, without witnesses, evidence, or a hearing of qualified legal experts with regard to jurisdiction.
When it held its two hour impeachment, the House demonstrated it no longer supports the "Rule of Law" or anything even approaching a American standard of "Due Process."
No comments:
Post a Comment