Why Do You Think the American Founders Intended Impeachment to be Totally Free of Politics?

FYI. Impeachment is NOT removal from office. Instead, it is a form of indictment and it means that the impeached person must stand trial (that might or might not result is his or her removal from office).



The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

I did not have the leisure to respond to them at the time I came across their comment and I have by now forgotten who they were, but I have not forgotten that they appeared to believe impeachment should be totally free of politics. That is, a non-political process.

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?


But hey, I'll play along....


Those questions will do for now, even though -- in my opinion -- I haven't even touched here on the most likely reason the Founders made impeachment just as political as they could make it. Doing so, however, would require a much longer OP.

......
* The phrase "the will of the people" is here used in the traditional sense of "the will of the people as expressed through who they voted into office". That is, the Constitution set things up so that the will of the people was originally most directly expressed by the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser extent by the President and the Senate. However, the Supreme Court was arguably the least representative of the people's will of all the branches.

Sunstone said:

The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

I did not have the leisure to respond to them at the time I came across their comment and I have by now forgotten who they were, but I have not forgotten that they appeared to believe impeachment should be totally free of politics. That is, a non-political process.

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?


But hey, I'll play along....

So OK, you good folks who think impeachment should be a wholly non-political process, first please explain to me just why you think it should be?

Next my friends, please explain to me why -- if the Founders wanted impeachment to be as non-political as possible, they failed to assign the duty to the Supreme Court -- rather than to Congress? Were they such idiots that they could not fathom the Court might be at least a little less political than the part of government they intended to be the MOST political of all (i.e. the House)?

Third, good ladies and gentlemen, please kindly tell me how it is that impeaching an elected president is best done by non-elected persons on the Supreme Court who have been purposely isolated as much as possible from the will of the people*, and cannot claim to represent it? Would the Founders not actually want the people's will to be altered (if it must be altered) by those very people (i.e. Congress) who can at least claim to collectively represent the people's will? Does it honestly make sense that the Founders would want the will of the people to be altered (if it must be altered) by people (i.e. the Supreme Court) who are as immune to the people's will as the Founders could make them?​

Those questions will do for now, even though -- in my opinion -- I haven't even touched here on the most likely reason the Founders made impeachment just as political as they could make it. Doing so, however, would require a much longer OP.

......
* The phrase "the will of the people" is here used in the traditional sense of "the will of the people as expressed through who they voted into office". That is, the Constitution set things up so that the will of the people was originally most directly expressed by the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser extent by the President and the Senate. However, the Supreme Court was arguably the least representative of the people's will of all the branches.

Click to expand...

I was just thinking that, along the lines of carrying out the will of the people, one solution might be to allow recall elections.

We were going to have one here in AZ to recall Governor Mecham, but the legislature impeached him and he was out of office before the recall election could be held.

Sunstone said:

The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

I did not have the leisure to respond to them at the time I came across their comment and I have by now forgotten who they were, but I have not forgotten that they appeared to believe impeachment should be totally free of politics. That is, a non-political process.

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?


But hey, I'll play along....

So OK, you good folks who think impeachment should be a wholly non-political process, first please explain to me just why you think it should be?

Next my friends, please explain to me why -- if the Founders wanted impeachment to be as non-political as possible, they failed to assign the duty to the Supreme Court -- rather than to Congress? Were they such idiots that they could not fathom the Court might be at least a little less political than the part of government they intended to be the MOST political of all (i.e. the House)?

Third, good ladies and gentlemen, please kindly tell me how it is that impeaching an elected president is best done by non-elected persons on the Supreme Court who have been purposely isolated as much as possible from the will of the people*, and cannot claim to represent it? Would the Founders not actually want the people's will to be altered (if it must be altered) by those very people (i.e. Congress) who can at least claim to collectively represent the people's will? Does it honestly make sense that the Founders would want the will of the people to be altered (if it must be altered) by people (i.e. the Supreme Court) who are as immune to the people's will as the Founders could make them?​

Those questions will do for now, even though -- in my opinion -- I haven't even touched here on the most likely reason the Founders made impeachment just as political as they could make it. Doing so, however, would require a much longer OP.

......
* The phrase "the will of the people" is here used in the traditional sense of "the will of the people as expressed through who they voted into office". That is, the Constitution set things up so that the will of the people was originally most directly expressed by the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser extent by the President and the Senate. However, the Supreme Court was arguably the least representative of the people's will of all the branches.

Click to expand...

my guess, they were not R and D yet, they were honorable people.

Sunstone said:

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?

Click to expand...

It was designed as a tool to remove leaders that actually committed crimes not merely because Hillary lost. Dems have been calling for impeachment since day 1 yet only now did they fill anything. Yet the filing was never over anything they claimed since day 1 to about a month ago.

Sunstone said:

The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

Click to expand...

Because the goal is not to impeach, it is to defame the Pres in the hopes he will lose in 2020. The DoJ, Congress, and the Supreme Court are not tools to abuse as the Dems have been doing the last year and half or so.

Shad said:

It was designed as a tool to remove leaders that actually committed crimes....

Click to expand...

That's simplistic and represents a sloppy misreading of the OP to boot. It represents a sloppy misreading of the OP because the OP is talking about impeachment by the House, not removal by the Senate. Removal was intended to be a slightly less political process than impeachment. The difference is significant in this context.

It's simplistic for reasons hinted at in the OP, but not made explicit. To whit, the process was made as political as the Founders could make it to -- among other reasons -- avoid impeaching someone who had committed crimes if and when doing so would have consequences far worse than not impeaching them. The Founders clearly wanted the House to consider the politics of impeachment, not just the justice of impeachment. If they had only been concerned with the justice of impeachment, they would have most likely assigned the job to the Supreme Court --- or at the least, they would have assigned both impeachment and removal to the Senate. Instead, they put the process in the hands of the (originally) MOST political branch of government.

Enoch07 said:

Because the goal is not to impeach, it is to defame the Pres in the hopes he will lose in 2020. The DoJ, Congress, and the Supreme Court are not tools to abuse as the Dems have been doing the last year and half or so.

Click to expand...

Your mind is rambling off topic as bad as Sean Hannity's brain on caffeine.

Sunstone said:

That's simplistic and represents a sloppy misreading of the OP to boot. It represents a sloppy misreading of the OP because the OP is talking about impeachment by the House, not removal by the Senate. Removal was intended to be a slightly less political process than impeachment. The difference is significant in this context.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant as I was pointing out party rhetoric. All Dems did was find was something to sink their teeth into after screaming about peach mints for 3 years.

It's simplistic for reasons hinted at in the OP, but not made explicit. To whit, the process was made as political as the Founders could make it to -- among other reasons -- avoid impeaching someone who had committed crimes if and when doing so would have consequences far worse than not impeaching them. The Founders clearly wanted the House to consider the politics of impeachment, not just the justice of impeachment. If they had only been concerned with the justice of impeachment, they would have most likely assigned the job to the Supreme Court --- or at the least, they would have assigned both impeachment and removal to the Senate. Instead, they put the process in the hands of the (originally) MOST political branch of government.

Click to expand...

It was not designed to be political garbage They assumed people would use to as good judges not partisan politicians.

It was not part of SCOTUS as SCOTUS seats are appointments not elected. It was a conflict of interest.

If you looked up the process you would see that the House appoints someone to act as prosecutor while allowing POTUS a defense lawyer. If you looked at the process you would note that a certain set illegal conduct is required not merely the whims of politicians.

Sunstone said:

Your mind is rambling off topic as bad as Sean Hannity's brain on caffeine.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's exactly what the poster meant by "political". Not your strawman in the OP.

Ignoring the usual scurrilous distraction and attacks from the usual suspects, I find the question raised in the OP well discussed here: What the Founders thought about impeachment and the President - National Constitution Center. To me, Hamilton answered your question as far as the current system goes although using the Supreme Court was also debated.

Hamilton argued strongly for the Senate and not the Supreme Court as the place where impeachment charges would be considered at trial related to “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,” Hamilton added.

Sunstone said:

The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

I did not have the leisure to respond to them at the time I came across their comment and I have by now forgotten who they were, but I have not forgotten that they appeared to believe impeachment should be totally free of politics. That is, a non-political process.

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?


But hey, I'll play along....

So OK, you good folks who think impeachment should be a wholly non-political process, first please explain to me just why you think it should be?

Next my friends, please explain to me why -- if the Founders wanted impeachment to be as non-political as possible, they failed to assign the duty to the Supreme Court -- rather than to Congress? Were they such idiots that they could not fathom the Court might be at least a little less political than the part of government they intended to be the MOST political of all (i.e. the House)?

Third, good ladies and gentlemen, please kindly tell me how it is that impeaching an elected president is best done by non-elected persons on the Supreme Court who have been purposely isolated as much as possible from the will of the people*, and cannot claim to represent it? Would the Founders not actually want the people's will to be altered (if it must be altered) by those very people (i.e. Congress) who can at least claim to collectively represent the people's will? Does it honestly make sense that the Founders would want the will of the people to be altered (if it must be altered) by people (i.e. the Supreme Court) who are as immune to the people's will as the Founders could make them?​

Those questions will do for now, even though -- in my opinion -- I haven't even touched here on the most likely reason the Founders made impeachment just as political as they could make it. Doing so, however, would require a much longer OP.

......
* The phrase "the will of the people" is here used in the traditional sense of "the will of the people as expressed through who they voted into office". That is, the Constitution set things up so that the will of the people was originally most directly expressed by the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser extent by the President and the Senate. However, the Supreme Court was arguably the least representative of the people's will of all the branches.

Click to expand...

In short since I'm short on time. The American people can't impeach anyone, only politicians can. So tell me how an impeachment can be non-political when it's about politicians, it is political, done by politicians, politicians are the only ones that can push it or stop it, and it only involves politicians?

Sunstone said:

does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?

Click to expand...

No. That would be to suggest the impossible.

Sunstone said:

Next my friends, please explain to me why -- if the Founders wanted impeachment to be as non-political as possible, they failed to assign the duty to the Supreme Court

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court does not represent the voice of the people. But it may represent the political views of those who confirmed them.
There was a reason the House Speaker held off the call for impeachment, until the latest, it was not the will of the people to impeach.

Sunstone said:

The other day, I heard someone on RF criticize the current impeachment process as "political".

I did not have the leisure to respond to them at the time I came across their comment and I have by now forgotten who they were, but I have not forgotten that they appeared to believe impeachment should be totally free of politics. That is, a non-political process.

My question is, do they -- or does anyone -- really think the American Founders thought it would be best if impeachment was free of politics?


But hey, I'll play along....

So OK, you good folks who think impeachment should be a wholly non-political process, first please explain to me just why you think it should be?

Next my friends, please explain to me why -- if the Founders wanted impeachment to be as non-political as possible, they failed to assign the duty to the Supreme Court -- rather than to Congress? Were they such idiots that they could not fathom the Court might be at least a little less political than the part of government they intended to be the MOST political of all (i.e. the House)?

Third, good ladies and gentlemen, please kindly tell me how it is that impeaching an elected president is best done by non-elected persons on the Supreme Court who have been purposely isolated as much as possible from the will of the people*, and cannot claim to represent it? Would the Founders not actually want the people's will to be altered (if it must be altered) by those very people (i.e. Congress) who can at least claim to collectively represent the people's will? Does it honestly make sense that the Founders would want the will of the people to be altered (if it must be altered) by people (i.e. the Supreme Court) who are as immune to the people's will as the Founders could make them?​

Those questions will do for now, even though -- in my opinion -- I haven't even touched here on the most likely reason the Founders made impeachment just as political as they could make it. Doing so, however, would require a much longer OP.

......
* The phrase "the will of the people" is here used in the traditional sense of "the will of the people as expressed through who they voted into office". That is, the Constitution set things up so that the will of the people was originally most directly expressed by the House of Representatives, but also to a lesser extent by the President and the Senate. However, the Supreme Court was arguably the least representative of the people's will of all the branches.

Click to expand...

It can't be non-political. I think the better term is 'non-partisan.' Today's impeachment cry isn't about any 'impeachable' offense; it's about undoing an election. The Dems have been crying 'impeachment' since the election results announcement. In fact, less than a day later...and before the man even took office. They have finally figured out (and it will, I think bite them in the behind) a charge to level, and frankly, it's bogus.

Clinton's misdeeds were obvious, identifiable and blatant. He lied to Congress, and that's what we was impeached over. The lie was not only obvious, he admitted to it and apologized to it...and in spite of behavior that, if engaged in by a Conservative, would have caused massive rebellion and the destruction of most of the public parks on either coast by Democrats if a Republican president had been caught in it...notice that Clinton was not removed from office.

And neither will Trump be, even if he IS impeached. In fact, I predict that if he is impeached (and why does everybody seem to think that 'impeachment' means 'fired?" ) it will only serve to cement his re-election.

I think that the founders wanted the PARTISANSHIP removed, or lessened, from the process because otherwise we are no different from any other parliamentary nation, where the parliament is in total control of the government and the Executive branch has little to no power. The balance is gone; don't like who got elected? Undo the election.

It's the same sort of reasoning that got the electoral college in place.

What you guys aren't THINKING is...if this stands, you are all shooting yourselves in the butt cheeks. If a Republican President is removed because of this, then the next time a Democrat gets elected and the Republicans are unhappy, ....whoosh...just undo the election.

As right wing as I am, and I am, when Clinton was impeached, I was against his conviction and removal. Really. His behavior was disgusting, but Americans elected him and as angry as I was about some of the things he did to my family (the Great Utah Land Grab) and friends, I thought that firing him wasn't the appropriate remedy. Sending him into post Presidential private life was, and electing someone else was.

Get over yourselves. Donald Trump was elected. He has not done ANYTHING that rises to the level of some of the shenanigans some of your precious Democrats have, and you guys lost the election. We lived through Clinton, and Johnson, and Obama. You WILL make it through Trump. The next president after Trump will probably be a Democrat, and the way things are going, probably more left wing than anybody currently running.

If you want that president to have a chance in Hades of staying in office and NOT being impeached, then start thinking ahead a little bit.

Stevicus said:

I was just thinking that, along the lines of carrying out the will of the people, one solution might be to allow recall elections.

We were going to have one here in AZ to recall Governor Mecham, but the legislature impeached him and he was out of office before the recall election could be held.

Click to expand...

Too bad the USA does not do "vote of no confidence".

Sunstone said:

Your mind is rambling off topic as bad as Sean Hannity's brain on caffeine.

Click to expand...

So now you are on a desert island for
an indefinite stay, and get one companion.

Rush, or Hannity.

Audie said:

So now you are on a desert island for
an indefinite stay, and get one companion.

Rush, or Hannity.

Click to expand...

No fair saying "funny".
Ya gotta pick.

Audie said:

So now you are on a desert island for
an indefinite stay, and get one companion.

Rush, or Hannity.

Click to expand...

ROFL! Great Question!

Rush is a rocket scientist compared
to Hannity. Both of them are college
drop outs who never saw a stupid idea
they didn't want to take home, feed, and
name as their own child, but Rush runs
circles around Hannity.

Here's a true story about Sean. My
introduction to him was the week
following 9/11. I had begun listening to
the radio because of the attacks. On
Monday or Tuesday, Sean said
something I mistook for a joke in
exceptionally poor taste. But the next
day he repeated it. And again sometime
later on in the week he repeated his
"joke" just as if he was serious. At last
I had to conclude he was serious.

Know what the joke was?

The terrorists had attacked us because
--- among other reasons -- they hated
our freedom to take our families
to Disney World.

Sunstone, meet Sean.

Sunstone said:

ROFL! Great Question!

Rush is a rocket scientist compared
to Hannity. Both of them are college
drop outs who never saw a stupid idea
they didn't want to take home, feed, and
name as their own child, but Rush runs
circles around Hannity.

Here's a true story about Sean. My
introduction to him was the week
following 9/11. I had begun listening to
the radio because of the attacks. On
Monday or Tuesday, Sean said
something I mistook for a joke in
exceptionally poor taste. But the next
day he repeated it. And again sometime
later on in the week he repeated his
"joke" just as if he was serious. At last
I had to conclude he was serious.

Know what the joke was?

The terrorists had attacked us because
--- among other reasons -- they hated
our freedom to take our families
to Disney World.

Sunstone, meet Sean.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that Rush is a lot smarter.
Hannity should have been a preacher.

Audie said:

Too bad the USA does not do "vote of no confidence".

Click to expand...

That would also be nice. I remember the recall drive to get rid of Mecham. He won the election with only 40% of the vote, as the Democratic vote was split - and even a lot of Republicans didn't like him that much.

The nice thing about a recall is that party affiliation is not on the ballot. It's just a matter of whoever gets enough signatures to get on the ballot, so it led to a rather odd assortment of candidates.