The Senate controls starting the impeachment trial...not Pelosi

[IsailedawayfromFR]

First, an impeachment is not a "bill".

Second, please cite where the constitution asserts that impeach must be formally "submitted" to the Senate...let me help...you will not find it there. It simply states the House will impeach, and gives no guidance or trigger for when/how the Senate chooses to take up that impeachment in a trial. It quite directly states that if the House impeaches, the Senate WILL conduct a trial...not may or should...WILL.

The Senate can absolutely assert that an impeachment was completed...and the charges publicly published...and that that is sufficient to trigger a trial. 51 votes are all it takes to make that assertion. Should they make such a decision, understand that it is not judicially reviewable...it is a delineated power of the Senate that no other branch can mitigate or dispute.

I have a couple of things:

First, there must be charges of some sort.  No one could possibly have a trial if all you know is someone says 'He is guilty!' without a charge of some sort on what he is guilty of.  The Senate body is the judge here.  What would any judge do in a courtroom to try a man who has no charges against him?

Second, it does indeed have to be official by the House, which means it must be relayed officially to the Senate for its handling.  Perhaps the Recorded House Vote on the Congressional Record could be used, but what is to prevent the House from pulling back the impeachment and voting once again and the impeachment vote fails time?  The House has not formally submitted anything as yet to the Senate so that is why it must be officially transmitted, just like any bill that comes from the House to the Senate relaying its approval.  Until it does, it is still 'unfinished' House business.

[Mesaclone]

I have a couple of things:

First, there must be charges of some sort.  No one could possibly have a trial if all you know is someone says 'He is guilty!' without a charge of some sort on what he is guilty of.  The Senate body is the judge here.  What would any judge do in a courtroom to try a man who has no charges against him?

Second, it does indeed have to be official by the House, which means it must be relayed officially to the Senate for its handling.  Perhaps the Recorded House Vote on the Congressional Record could be used, but what is to prevent the House from pulling back the impeachment and voting once again and the impeachment vote fails time?  The House has not formally submitted anything as yet to the Senate so that is why it must be officially transmitted, just like any bill that comes from the House to the Senate relaying its approval.  Until it does, it is still 'unfinished' House business.

Again, this is not a bill...and should not be perceived as such.

It is "official" the minute the voting is complete and the Impeachment articles publicly published. At that point, both the Senate and the nation at large have the charges...flimsy though they are...and the next step (Senate trial) in the Constitutional requirement is activated. The Constitution in no way requires anything more in terms of notification to the Senate. There is no formal submission requirement...in the constitution.  Senate rules are the issue, the only issue, in terms of the mechanism of accepting the Impeachment charges, and those can be changed with a simple majority vote.

As for "pulling it back"...there's nothing to pull. The trial begins and the outcome is entirely up to the Senate...the House cannot stop a Senate trial by the "imaginary" act of pulling something back. Once voted and published, the House no longer owns the impeachment and has fulfilled its constitutional empowerment in the matter. The House, in other words, is out of it entirely at this point.  The Senate can, of course, invite the House to present its case via its chosen managers...but that is simply a Senate rule, not a constitutional requirement.

In effect, the House is done with its role by voting Impeachment. The Senate, now, may take any actions it so chooses to hold a trial...it is in no way obligated to wait on "formal" notice or the delivery of paper documents. Nothing in the constitution itself suggests otherwise...either explicitly or implicitly.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Again, this is not a bill...and should not be perceived as such.

It is "official" the minute the voting is complete and the Impeachment articles publicly published. At that point, both the Senate and the nation at large have the charges...flimsy though they are...and the next step (Senate trial) in the Constitutional requirement is activated. The Constitution in no way requires anything more in terms of notification to the Senate. There is no formal submission requirement...in the constitution.  Senate rules are the issue, the only issue, in terms of the mechanism of accepting the Impeachment charges, and those can be changed with a simple majority vote.

As for "pulling it back"...there's nothing to pull. The trial begins and the outcome is entirely up to the Senate...the House cannot stop a Senate trial by the "imaginary" act of pulling something back. Once voted and published, the House no longer owns the impeachment and has fulfilled its constitutional empowerment in the matter. The House, in other words, is out of it entirely at this point.  The Senate can, of course, invite the House to present its case via its chosen managers...but that is simply a Senate rule, not a constitutional requirement.

In effect, the House is done with its role by voting Impeachment. The Senate, now, may take any actions it so chooses to hold a trial...it is in no way obligated to wait on "formal" notice or the delivery of paper documents. Nothing in the constitution itself suggests otherwise...either explicitly or implicitly.

If what you are saying is true, then my question is 'Has the Senate ever in its history taken up an action based upon the actions of the House by the Senate simply reading the Congressional record?'

I believe that is what you are saying.  It is the Senate who decides on what is passed in the House by simply reading the record, whether it is a bill or any other recorded item.

Also, if this is true, then why does the Senate ever wait for the formality of the House advising the Senate of its actions?

Why doesn't the Senate always simply deem when it considers the House actions are completed?

I submit that the House must deem its actions completed, not the Senate, and it does so not by the Congressional record but by proper notifications.

[Cyber Liberty]

If what you are saying is true, then my question is 'Has the Senate ever in its history taken up an action based upon the actions of the House by the Senate simply reading the Congressional record?'

I believe that is what you are saying.  It is the Senate who decides on what is passed in the House by simply reading the record, whether it is a bill or any other recorded item.

Also, if this is true, then why does the Senate ever wait for the formality of the House advising the Senate of its actions?

Why doesn't the Senate always simply deem when it considers the House actions are completed?

I submit that the House must deem its actions completed, not the Senate, and it does so not by the Congressional record but by proper notifications.

At the moment there is no profit in McConnell pushing to start the trial.  There is much to be gained by letting Pelosi twist in the wind as pressure mounts.  On her.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

At the moment there is no profit in McConnell pushing to start the trial.  There is much to be gained by letting Pelosi twist in the wind as pressure mounts.  On her.

True enough.

What I am questioning is whether it is up to the Senate to decide the House's actions. A deliberation and vote is one thing, but may not be what the House considers a final decision.

[Mesaclone]

If what you are saying is true, then my question is 'Has the Senate ever in its history taken up an action based upon the actions of the House by the Senate simply reading the Congressional record?' See my narrative below on this.

[/u][/u]
I believe that is what you are saying. It is the Senate who decides on what is passed in the House by simply reading the record, whether it is a bill or any other recorded item. No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying Legislation is an entirely different matter and has no bearing on the impeachment process...apples and oranges. No one "decides" when impeachment is effected, a vote on the act is taken in the House and once completed with a majority, impeachment has occurred...thus triggering the Senate's constitutional obligation to hold a trial.

Also, if this is true, then why does the Senate ever wait for the formality of the House advising the Senate of its actions? As to legislation, the Senate is obligated to wait on the House. In other cases, it is tradition. In the case of impeachment, the obligation to conduct a trial is imposed by the ACT of impeachment...constitutionally...not by the formal method of its transmission.[/b]

Why doesn't the Senate always simply deem when it considers the House actions are completed? It cannot in matters of legislation...which has no bearing on this discussion.

I submit that the House must deem its actions completed, not the Senate, and it does so not by the Congressional record but by proper notifications.In matters of law making you are correct. In matters of impeachment the obligation of the Constitution is otherwise...the Senate's requirement to enact a trial...as is specifically stated in the constitution...is enacted by the "act" of impeachment, not by the method of transmission/notification of that act.

There have only been three successful Presidential impeachments in the history of the Republic and in neither of the previous two was that impeachment NOT transmitted to the Senate in formal fashion.  There have been numerous judicial impeachments in the Senate but again, the formal process of transmission...which is based on Senate tradition NOT constitutional stricture...was followed in all cases.

The absence of the implementation of the traditional transmission, which is based entirely upon Senate rules and custom, does not alter the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to AUTOMATICALLY conduct a trial once a House impeachment has been concluded. So this is, by any measure, new constitutional ground...in which case the Senate is free to assert its enactment of a trial as it so chooses...without threat of judicial review.

In effect, an impeachment is completed when the Senate asserts that it is...as Senate actions in this matter are NOT subject to judicial review (nor for that matter are the House's actions). As this is not legislation, Senatorial obligation is imposed...constitutionally...by the ACT of impeachment. Not by the transmission of said impeachment in some formal manner.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There have only been three successful Presidential impeachments in the history of the Republic and in neither of the previous two was that impeachment NOT transmitted to the Senate in formal fashion.  There have been numerous judicial impeachments in the Senate but again, the formal process of transmission...which is based on Senate tradition NOT constitutional stricture...was followed in all cases.

The absence of the implementation of the traditional transmission, which is based entirely upon Senate rules and custom, does not alter the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to AUTOMATICALLY conduct a trial once a House impeachment has been concluded. So this is, by any measure, new constitutional ground...in which case the Senate is free to assert its enactment of a trial as it so chooses...without threat of judicial review.

In effect, an impeachment is completed when the Senate asserts that it is...as Senate actions in this matter are NOT subject to judicial review (nor for that matter are the House's actions). As this is not legislation, Senatorial obligation is imposed...constitutionally...by the ACT of impeachment. Not by the transmission of said impeachment in some formal manner.

I assert that since as per the Constitution that the House has sole power of impeachment, this statement is incorrect.

And you also have not addressed how the Senate can assess that the matter of impeachment is actually concluded.  You are implying that the Senate takes it upon itself to read the Congressional record of the House, which is a record of deliberations and voting, not necessarily what leaves the House and is passed on.

Has there ever been in the history of the Senate actions by them based simply upon its reading of the Congressional record of the House deliberations and votes?

[Mesaclone]

I assert that since as per the Constitution that the House has sole power of impeachment, this statement is incorrect. The House DOES have the sole power to impeach, which it has done by vote. The Senate's proceeding to trial in no way impedes the House's action of Impeaching the President. Further, transmission of the articles is in no way part of "impeachment" within the constitution. Once voting on impeachment is complete, the President is impeached...which in turn activates the Senate's obligation to conduct a trial.

And you also have not addressed how the Senate can assess that the matter of impeachment is actually concluded.  The articles are publicly published as is all the evidence gathered by the House. The "assessment" is conducted with the evidence given in the impeachment...the Senate would,of course, invite the House to send managers to argue that evidence. If those managers choose not to come, the case stands on its own and is voted on as is. You are implying that the Senate takes it upon itself to read the Congressional record of the House, which is a record of deliberations and voting, not necessarily what leaves the House and is passed on. With legislation, absolutely not. With impeachment, that is entirely a correct assertion. The two things are not analogous in any way. The Senate will accept any and all evidence gathered by the House, but if such evidence is not presented the Senate is under no obligation to suspend its required constitutional obligation to proceed to trial.

Has there ever been in the history of the Senate actions by them based simply upon its reading of the Congressional record of the House deliberations and votes? I think I was rather clear in stating that the "history" is inclusive of 3 events (3 Presidential Impeachments. In 2, the articles were "formally" delivered as per Senate rule...not as per constitutional direction. In this case, in an unprecedented action, the House is withholding formal transmission. But, as that formal transmission is not part of the Constitutional direction, it is a constitutionally irrelevant act...the Senate rule that directs it to await transmission can be changed at will as it is custom rather than constitutional requirement. Once done, the Senate proceeds to trial with the full published articles and all evidence available for review. End of story.

[Hoodat]

And you also have not addressed how the Senate can assess that the matter of impeachment is actually concluded.

The House took two impeachment votes. Both passed.  In public.  There was a public declaration that President Trump was impeached.  And as the Constitution says, all impeachments are to be tried in the Senate.

This is no longer in Pelosi's hands.  The extent of her power in this matter has been exhausted.  And McConnell can demonstrate that by moving forward with the 'trial'.  And when House prosecutors fail to show, the case will be dismissed.

[Mesaclone]

The House took two impeachment votes. Both passed.  In public.  There was a public declaration that President Trump was impeached.  And as the Constitution says, all impeachments are to be tried in the Senate.

This is no longer in Pelosi's hands.  The extent of her power in this matter has been exhausted.  And McConnell can demonstrate that by moving forward with the 'trial'.  And when House prosecutors fail to show, the case will be dismissed.

Thank you for stating more succinctly than I could. The completed vote IS the Impeachment...this is not a piece of legislation or a censure.

[Hoodat]

Impeachment Vote

Roll Call 696


It is finished.  Now the Senate can act.  Nancy Pelosi no longer has any control over this.  If she tries to block it, then she is guilty of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power.

[libertybele]

Yes he is impeached. I wouldn't think that the Senate could start the trail without the articles of impeachment. Pretty hard to have a trial when you don't have a copy of the articles impeachment.

Perhaps Nancy will never pass them on.  He will be impeached without being able to be acquitted with a trial.  That would absolutely 'frost his petutti'.

[Hoodat]

Yes he is impeached. I wouldn't think that the Senate could start the trail without the articles of impeachment. Pretty hard to have a trial when you don't have a copy of the articles impeachment.

Here's a copy:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

[XenaLee]

Yes he is impeached. I wouldn't think that the Senate could start the trail without the articles of impeachment. Pretty hard to have a trial when you don't have a copy of the articles impeachment.

Perhaps Nancy will never pass them on.  He will be impeached without being able to be acquitted with a trial.  That would absolutely 'frost his petutti'.

As well it should.   That's not the way this nation's government was structured, to allow for radical and (dare I say it?  I dare, I dare!) rogue leftists in Congress to plunge the nation into crisis, constitutional or otherwise.

I think the backlash against the DemocRats should already be enough to landslide Trump to victory next year.... sending a not-subtle message to the tyrannical rats that they have, once again and per usual....

over-reached.

[Mesaclone]

Here's a copy:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

Precisely. The whole nation, including the Senate, has been delivered the articles of impeachment and supporting evidence (or better stated, lack thereof of evidence). The Senate needs nothing from the House...not its records of the proceedings, nor some formal handoff of paperwork. The President is impeached. The Senate, once its altered its own rules, may proceed with the trial...the House will be given a choice to deliver its case or not, but the trial will go on as is REQUIRED under the Constitution.

[Fishrrman]

"The Senate, once its altered its own rules, may proceed with the trial...the House will be given a choice to deliver its case or not, but the trial will go on as is REQUIRED under the Constitution."

I agree.

But as I posted earlier, the first order of Senate business should be a request for the immediate delivery of the paperwork from the House. Kind of like requesting "service of process". I'm only guessing, but I sense that if the Republican Senate pushes this through on a partisan vote, and if the time by which to comply is limited to, say, 24-48 hours, Pelosi will balk and won't respond.

That's fine. Actually, it's what we want.

The NEXT order of business should be a vote by the Senators as to whether it's proper to proceed -- without paperwork, without "House impeachment managers", and [most importantly] without evidence. Consider this "the arraignment", if you like.

Without sufficient evidence (of course, there never WAS any), the next vote by the Senate should be to DISMISS the impeachment on its face, as insufficient to proceed. It's important that the documentation for such vote include that impeachment proceedings can only proceed upon the introduction of proper evidence, and that there has been none in this case. If need be, there should also be a vote to summarily acquit Mr. Trump of any supposed charges before the Senate at that moment.

Why do this?
Because the object should be not only to "acquit" Mr. Trump, but also to deliver a REBUKE to the House for pushing frivolous charges under the guise of "impeachment". The goal here is to restore impeachment as a Constitutional process that is necessary for the prosecution of actual "high crimes and misdemeanors", as distinguished from anti-Trump hatred.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In effect, an impeachment is completed when the Senate asserts that it is...

I know we have been going back and forth on this and unlikely to persuade each other.

I'll leave the topic by once again saying this is an incorrect statement as only the House can say an impeachment is concluded, not the Senate.

Otherwise, the Senate could have said he was impeached weeks ago before the vote.

[Mesaclone]

I know we have been going back and forth on this and unlikely to persuade each other.

I'll leave the topic by once again saying this is an incorrect statement as only the House can say an impeachment is concluded, not the Senate.

Otherwise, the Senate could have said he was impeached weeks ago before the vote.

Here, as I comprehend it, is the crux of our disagreement.   

1. ONLY the House can conclude impeachment.
2. ANYONE, including the Senate, can assert that impeachment is concluded once the House votes to impeach.

I think both bullet statements are true, you seem to only accept the first...while the constitution itself asserts that Impeachment occurs when a majority of House members vote for it, an act which in and of itself imposes an obligation on the Senate to conduct a trial.

Nowhere in the constitution is their a preamble to the directive of conducting a trial that asserts transmission of such a vote must be made formally, or by a delivery of paper articles from House to Senate. The Constitution imposes a trial obligation in the very instant an impeachment vote concludes in the House. Period.

[Hoodat]

The Constitution is clear.  "All impeachments" means all impeachments.  It draws no distinction between impeachments where the House sends articles afterward and impeachments where the House does not.

[Mesaclone]

Simplified:

John shoots Joe.
John neglects to formally tell Bill that he has shot Joe.

Does this mean the act of John shooting Joe has not been completed?

[Hoodat]

Time for a music interlude.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[Maj. Bill Martin]

True enough.

What I am questioning is whether it is up to the Senate to decide the House's actions. A deliberation and vote is one thing, but may not be what the House considers a final decision.

But the Democrats are not arguing that he hasn't been impeached.  They're saying it is a three step process. 1) impeachment is actually complete and final, 2)  the articles are sent to the Senate formally, and 3) the Senate holds a trial.  The problem is that the second step appears nowhere in the Constitution, and there's nothing giving the Democrats the power to invent that step.

Don't take my word for it -- here's the Speaker of the House, after the vote was taken, recorded, and published:

“He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached for ever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached for ever because he violated our constitution,” she said.
“If I did nothing else, he saw the power of the gavel there,” Pelosi told the AP. “And it wasn’t me, it was all of our members making their own decision.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/20/nancy-pelosi-on-trump-and-the-power-of-the-gavel-hell-be-impeached-for-ever

If there is a single person in the entire world empowered to say what determines whether or not the President has been impeached, it is the Speaker.  And she's saying it's final.  She's just inventing an extra-constitutional middle step to try to deprive the Senate of jurisdiction.

@Mesaclone

[Wingnut]

Time for a music interlude.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Everyone called her Nancy

[Mesaclone]

But the Democrats are not arguing that he hasn't been impeached.  They're saying it is a three step process. 1) impeachment is actually complete and final, 2)  the articles are sent to the Senate formally, and 3) the Senate holds a trial.  The problem is that the second step appears nowhere in the Constitution, and there's nothing giving the Democrats the power to invent that step.

Don't take my word for it -- here's the Speaker of the House, after the vote was taken, recorded, and published:

“He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached for ever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached for ever because he violated our constitution,” she said.
“If I did nothing else, he saw the power of the gavel there,” Pelosi told the AP. “And it wasn’t me, it was all of our members making their own decision.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/20/nancy-pelosi-on-trump-and-the-power-of-the-gavel-hell-be-impeached-for-ever

If there is a single person in the entire world empowered to say what determines whether or not the President has been impeached, it is the Speaker.  And she's saying it's final.  She's just inventing an extra-constitutional middle step to try to deprive the Senate of jurisdiction.

@Mesaclone

Fantastic point, @Maj. Bill Martin that completely whizzed right past me in my look at this...the Speaker has declared after a vote that the President is impeached. That's the end of the debate, really.

The Constitution obligates the Senate to hold a trial IF/WHEN the President is impeached. This obligation is activated not when the Senate receives documents...not when the Speaker decides to send managers...not when the Dems decide the trial is going to be run the way they want it...but upon the act of impeachment.

[dfwgator]

The House took two impeachment votes. Both passed.  In public.  There was a public declaration that President Trump was impeached.  And as the Constitution says, all impeachments are to be tried in the Senate.

This is no longer in Pelosi's hands.  The extent of her power in this matter has been exhausted.  And McConnell can demonstrate that by moving forward with the 'trial'.  And when House prosecutors fail to show, the case will be dismissed.

So what is Mitch waiting for?


He's gonna cave.