ith all the talk about impeaching Donald Trump, I decided to take a look at what presidents can be impeached for. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution specifies presidents can only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Treason and bribery are pretty self-evident. There was a lot of concern expressed during the framing of the Constitution about a president who might commit the nation to a bad treaty or betray the country if in the pay of a foreign power. There was also discussion of a president trying to buy votes in the Electoral College or otherwise obtain office by corrupt means.
But “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, what does that mean? It may surprise you to learn that it does not have to be an actual crime. It can be an abuse of power, a breach of trust, or neglect of duty. That would seem to cover a president who just decided not to show up for work for six months. Other grounds for impeachment arguably include “maladministration”, attempts to subvert the Constitution, and serious public misconduct.
All of this is a little vague, but it’s not nothing. What we get from this is that you’re not supposed to be able to impeach a president simply because you disagree with the president’s policies or you don’t like the president’s political party. Are you listening, resisters? The language of the Constitution disposes of most of the claims made by the hotheads running around saying President Trump should be impeached.
I drew most of this analysis from an article by Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor who was a legal advisor to the Obama White House. Lots of people are very suspicious of Sunstein. He wrote a book arguing that every generation reinvents the Constitution anew. Way too fluid for my liking. But his article about impeachment appears to be straightforward and accurate. If I’m wrong, there are very sharp minds in my audience who will let me know right away, as they have in the past.
“What the Constitution says about impeachment” by Cass Sunstein
A Constitution of Many Minds : Cass R. Sunstein : 9780691133379
Peter, a Millennial, looks back and objects to the brainwashing he received in public schools controlled by the Progressives. “[I]t’s blatant indoctrination into their liberal cult…,” he writes, and goes on:
Amidst all the discussion of President Trump’s immigration order, I saw the question posed: Do illegal aliens have Constitutional rights? The answer is they clearly do have some, although it is a vast subject and the answer might be different for each right under discussion.
Before getting into this any further, let me say that I do not mind using the term ‘illegal alien’. The term is used in the U.S. Code and is accurate. If you object to the use of the term, I suggest you write your Congressional representative.
Illegal aliens may not have the right to vote but, under current Supreme Court precedent, they do have the right to send their children to public schools for K-12 education. That was settled in the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe in which the Court struck down a Texas statute which attempted to deny education funding to illegal aliens and, further, struck down a local school district’s attempt to charge them tuition.
The Court did this under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. The 14th Amendment, by its terms, talks about guaranteeing the privileges and immunities of U.S. CITIZENS, but goes on to give equal protection rights to PERSONS. The upshot: you don’t have to be a citizen to get equal protection of the law.
There are three levels of equal protection rights. Suspect classifications like race get strict scrutiny, meaning the government must have a COMPELLING reason to deny equal protection of the law. The Plyler Court analyzed discrimination against immigrants one notch down, intermediate scrutiny, but found that Texas could not offer even a SUBSTANTIAL interest to justify discriminating against illegal aliens when it comes to K-12 education.
Substantial, compelling - if all this sounds vague and subjective to you, that’s because it is. There is no rigor and no objective standards in a lot of Supreme Court constitutional analysis. What is substantial or compelling to one Justice might not be to another, depending on how they feel that day.
It is what it is, and that’s the system we’ve got – with the Supreme Court on top deciding constitutional questions – for now. It doesn’t always have to be this way, but that’s a subject for another day.
"Illegal Alien": The Proper Terminology
Plyler v. Doe (U.S. 1982)
You wouldn’t want your phone hacked, would you? Then why would you want your very being hacked? ‘Political correctness’ isn’t just harmless blather. It’s psychological manipulation of the highest order guaranteed to keep you stupid. In this sort of ‘Propaganda 101’ short course, thought control expert Stella Morabito shows you how to protect yourself - Are you being threatened with slurs or labels? Are you expected to trade in reality to prop up somebody’s illusion? Etc. Highly Recommended
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has the big picture right, not surprisingly. His mentor was Antonin Scalia.
Judge Gorsuch is an originalist. Like Justice Scalia, Gorsuch believes that judges should actually look at the Constitution and the Founders’ intent before interpreting what the words of the Constitution mean. Implicit in this is the rejection of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along “living, breathing constitution” drivel you hear so often from the Left. Gorsuch has said, if judges go by their personal beliefs, they are "little more than politicians with robes."
In one opinion (Cordova v. City of Albuquerque), Gorsuch wrote that:
He wrote in dissent in another case,
His fidelity to separation of powers also comes through in his sharp criticism of the Chevron doctrine in which courts give too much deference to administrative agencies that expand the scope of laws far beyond anything the legislature wrote. It has been said that Gorsuch will make his make mark reining in run-away administrative agencies.
He is also leery of run-away courts. In a dissent in a 2012 gun case, he wrote:
Finally, Gorsuch wrote a book in 2006 criticizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. The book argues that human life is intrinsically valuable and intentional killing is always wrong. Imagine that. Moral absolutes, what a refreshing notion in a world fast succumbing to post-modern gibberish.
So, whether it’s originalism, the separation of powers, or the dignity and worth of the individual, Neil Gorsuch has the big picture right and is a solid pick for the next Justice of the Supreme Court.
“Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia” by J. Neil Gorsuch (Case Western Reserve Law Review - 2016)
“Neil Gorsuch Will Protect Our Constitution as Our Next Supreme Court Justice”
“Neil Gorsuch and the living Constitution lie”
“Trump's Supreme Court pick adheres closely to Constitution”
“Neil Gorsuch Should be Hailed by Privacy Advocates”
“Tenth Circuit: Accessing email is a ‘search’ under the Jones trespass test”
“Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Wary of ‘Politicians With Robes’”
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia by Neil Gorsuch
Resource - www.confirmgorsuch.com/
Support the nomination with Tea Party Patriots (sign the petition, host a house party, more) -
Knights for Socialism at Florida college bring in a boxer to teach how to ‘Bash the Fash’ (i.e., fascist Trump supporters).
High schoolers’ support for free speech nosedives if opinions are ‘offensive’
Santa Clara U student government rejects capitalism club as ‘against humanity’
Santa Clara student government strikes again: Turning Point USA group rejected because it would make students feel ‘unsafe’ (watch video)
Olga Perez Stable Cox, left-wing instructor Orange Coast College used class to call Trump win “act of terrorism”