« Evidence that Jews do not run Hollywood | Main | Kennesaw State pays cheerleader $ 145,000 for having knelt »

Thursday, December 12, 2019

Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

Suppose Republicans retake the House of Representatives in 2020. In the new House, they promptly repeal of what they consider the unjust impeachment of President Trump. Can they do that?

The answer, I think, is yes. It's never been done before, but I am hard pressed to see why the House is bound by an impeachment passed by a prior one. This is different from an impeachment and a conviction. The Senate's judgment in impeachment trials is final. The impeachment itself, though, is not different from any other House resolution. (There is an analogy here to the Senate's Censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, which a different Senate expunged three years later.) I doubt, though, that a repeal of an impeachment will mean that people will say that President Trump was not impeached.

Posted by Gerard Magliocca on December 12, 2019 at 09:12 PM | Permalink

Comments

If President Trump resigned then I assume Vice-President Pence would then be promoted to President.

Could President Pence select citizen Trump as Vice-President?

President Pence could then resign and Vice-President Trump would now be President and have the authority to re-appoint now resigned President Pence as his Vice-President.

Sounds like a plan to me!

Posted by: The Wonderer | Jan 19, 2020 5:19:38 PM

Thanks for this educational information this is clearly well explained.

Posted by: Winston Dutchin | Jan 19, 2020 11:28:47 AM

So if he was deposed from office by a certain illegal group during his second term, let's say a military takeover not Senate. Four years later, he could run again.

Well on another note, answer in a non-legal term again please, can the impeachment be expunged after he gets found not guilty of the impeachment charges in the Senate? Why can't he just have the courts do the expungement and not Congress? You know Trump will insist on trying that .

Posted by: Uncle60 | Jan 16, 2020 1:41:16 AM

So then the senate's judgement in an impeachment is not final, if a different senate can just retry the same charges with the same evidence just to reach a different verdict.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Dec 15, 2019 12:56:19 PM

Related question: it’s early 2021 and the House is still blue but so is the Senate. Trump is POTUS again. Anything prevent a Senate redo on the existing articles, assuming as we do that the Senate acquits this go around? No double jeopardy, no claim or issue preclusion? The Senate is somewhat differently constituted but, unlike the House, is it bound by the earlier acquittal in that not all the members are up for re-election every 2 years?

Posted by: TS | Dec 15, 2019 9:57:33 AM

Just ignored, and to be added hereby:

There is another stipulation and provision prescribed in the constitution ( in addition to the three mentioned) and it is, I quote:

" When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation "

As such,and in sum:

- The Senate
- Chief justice ( if the president tried).
- Two thirds of votes ( members present).
- And finally, as added: on oath or affirmation.

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Dec 14, 2019 9:56:27 AM

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Posted by: sohbet | Dec 14, 2019 7:59:45 AM

Seems like the Democratic House now could unimpeach Clinton, saying Trump does far worse every day.

Posted by: Shecky | Dec 13, 2019 8:44:09 AM

Just swift illustration, of that principal, that interpreting the constitution, has the same power as what is prescribed explicitly ( apparently ) in it:

The fourth amendment, dictates, that no search without warrant and reasonable cause or suspicion, shall be carried out on one person or premises and so forth.... But if so, one couldn't never ever search on one person or in his baggage while crossing borders or check points therein. Why ? because, no warrant, no reasonable suspicion exist ( must be individual ). Yet, and despite clear apparent, prima facie, violation of the fourth amendment, the courts held clearly, that this is constitutionally right. That's it.It is then, matter of degree, not of, clearly,explicitly established constitutional provisions and no more.

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Dec 13, 2019 5:35:11 AM

Interesting issue or question. Definitely complicated. It seems that the author of the post, refers rather to the " after the fact " situation, or after being accomplished. So, the effective issue, would be the removal from office (rather than the proceedings ). For dealing with it, we need to pose the theoretical hypothetical scenario:

Suppose that one of the three absolute stipulations, prescribed in the constitution, not realized,and the president removed. That is to say, that one of the three:

Not the Senate ( removed him ). Not by two third vote. Without the chief justice presiding. What then:

In such case, one may argue, that surely the removal from office is invalid, since it was fundamentally so wrong and flawed and unconstitutional, that such removal is not valid in fact. Then :

Federal court if petitioned, would only declare about the invalidity, not actually ruling and prevailing about such invalidity. But, it is per se, prima facie, by nature invalid. That is to say:

That, such legal or illegal situation, is possible ( it is matter of degree, the hypothetical case brought, was just extreme one for the methodology, interpreting the constitution is not less than what it dictates apparently clearly ).

So, if removed, under such conditions, he would be able, to run again for presidency. Since the removal, is prima facie invalid. For the rest, up to the court. For, no one is above the law. And the Supreme court held already, that power of the House and Senate, not absolute.

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Dec 13, 2019 5:20:23 AM

Post a comment