Dersh Weighs In

Professor Alan Dershowitz is negatively impressed.
Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption....

In doing this, they follow the view of Representative Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.”
Ironically, "rule of law" has been one of the biggest talking points by Democrats supporting impeachment. It is correct to say that there is a basic American principle that "no one is above the law." They apparently forget the principle that no one is beneath it, either.

UPDATE: In fairness, the Progs aren't satisfied either. Then again, when are they ever?

2 comments:

Texan99 said...

I'm still simply staring in blank amazement at sentences that refer to "obstruction of Congress." How is it that these people aren't laughed out of the room? Do most voters not realize what an insane expression that is?

Cassandra said...

I'm still simply staring in blank amazement at sentences that refer to "obstruction of Congress." How is it that these people aren't laughed out of the room? Do most voters not realize what an insane expression that is?

They really don't. That's the danger of hearing untruths repeated over and over again - you can't believe that many people are wrong/lying to you.

That's why I agree that what the press and the dems have done since 2016 is far more damaging to norms/rule of law than anything Trump was accused of.