The Articles of Impeachment: A blatant arrest of the US Constitution?

Views: 86
Spread the love

The U.S capitol building is full of exaggeratedly twisted stories in which the conflict seems contrived simply to generate drama or comedy or both. One such story is the reading of the impeachment articles against President Donald Trump, and the swearing in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the senators who will decide whether Trump should be removed from office. 

 Whereas  the  articles  of  impeachment  state,  that  President  Trump  used  his  high powers  to  solicit the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential election through  a  scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage; Democrats  are yet  to  illustrate   how  the   President  used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.

In short, Democrats have accused the President of trying to extort a foreign leader into helping him dishonor a political rival.

And the articles of impeachment   are as cathartic to read as it is to witness.

According to U.S. Rep. Alma Adams, D-Greensboro, Trump’s behavior “undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office that he holds and puts the national security at risk”.

Yet, this threatening rhetoric stemming from Democrats are not only muted in a mesh of imageries that expose the unfounded   truth of the US Constitution, but a   stream of betraying   images also   emerges to contend with the Constitution and mystify it.

Although   the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” the resolute and inflexible rudiments of  the  articles  of  impeachment  in both the  House  of  Representatives  and the  Senate are  yet  to  detail    what  is meant   by  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.

More significantly, Harvard   Law Professor Allan Dershowitz admittance, that he is participating   in this impeachment   trial   to defend the integrity of the Constitution    and to prevent the   creation of a dangerous Constitution precedent, necessitates the interruption of mistrust on the part of Democrats   where the Constitution is concerned.    Accordingly, the Constitution’s    standard   for an impeachable    offense of high crimes and misdemeanors    does   not require   proof of a crime   beyond a reasonable   doubt.  

Clearly, a President can be impeached for committing “high Crimes and misdemeanors”, but what precisely are “high crimes and misdemeanors?

Even though the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears in Article II section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, it is important to reexamine the language pertaining to impeachment in the Constitution and understand the way in which language   is turning reality on its head in this impeachment proceedings.   Thus, within this context, high crimes and misdemeanors are effective only as a psychological component of   the articles of impeachment to   influence and control the minds of the American people. 

The point is that, President Trump did in fact abuse the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. President  Trump  betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections,  yet  the  important  question  lingers :  How   will  the  articles  of  impeachment    brought  against  President  Trump  act  as  a  precedent  if  a  precedent  is  understood   as “a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on, or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts”?

Besides, several key figures in the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine have refused to provide testimony or documents in the House impeachment inquiry.  Moreover, how can    Senators decide the case using only the material amassed by House investigators?

 While  Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman  believes that  the framers of the Constitution “would identify President Trump’s conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high crimes and misdemeanors, that they were worried about,  and   ultimately this would be a political process, it  must be  seen that  this  form  of    unsubstantiated optimism  can also   lead  to  the  arrest  of  the  Constitution   as  the  meaning of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’  varies   from time  to time  and  from place  to  place.

Therefore, the integrity of the Constitution in this impeachment trial must be defended at all cost. As a mark of a flourishing humanity the ‘misunderstood triumphs’ of Democrats should not be allowed to further   avenge   the clauses of the Constitution with a rambling inexplicable   article of impeachment which can lead to nothing more, other   than the complete acquittal of Mr.  Trump and   a more careful, vibrant response to make America and    the Constitution great   again.