Nov. 8, 2019 – There has been much controversy in Washington about the Trump impeachment inquiry–but many working in our nation’s government on the other side of the aisle seem to have no have no clue as to what is really going on. They make excuse after excuse for the president–when in reality there is no excuse. One of the most puzzling diatribes of all was made by Senator Rand Paul–an eye doctor that appears not to be seeing clearly. Most assuredly, he doesn’t see the writing on the wall–that the president is untruthful, and his policies are antithetical to the majority of the US population. Even more troubling, the Senator–a doctor by training–knows nothing about the law–yet he acts like he’s an authority on it.
For the majority of the population, I don’t believe there are many people who go to a doctor, when in fact they are seeking legal advice and guidance. And, even a more pointed question, If that doctor gave out free legal advice–would you take it? I think most rational people would not. So then why is Rand Paul giving legal advice to those at the Trump rallies and to the media? And by all appearances, it doesn’t appear he wants to learn. Because of this, one can only deduce by the “doctor’s behavior, is that he aims only to curry favor with the current president, Donald Trump. So let’s explore what snake oil the “good doctor” is pandering to keep the Trump proclaimed “witch hunt” in business for the American people.
First, we must reestablish the imperatives. That is, in the United States Constitution, we are informed that there are three branches of government. Article I outlines the role of the Legislative branch (law-making body); Article II is the Executive branch (enforcement of the laws by the executive branch which includes the president); and Article III which is the Judicial branch or the courts. These “three” co-equal branches of government we formed and identified in Articles I-II of the US Constitution. These three Articles appear in the US Constitution, because the founders believed it was necessary to require checks and balances on the other branches to keep them in line. This is essential to keep the three branches in harmnony–complementing each and every other branch as co-equal branches of government.
It is the US Constitution that is the law of the land. It takes precedence over every statute and every law made by our Senators and Representatives–or any other body of lawmakers. It “trumps” every executive action ever initiated by ANY president. It sets out a framework on mandates that must be adhered to for the United States to remain inviolable.
Article II which applies to the “Legislative Branch” of government states the following:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
–US Constitution, Article II, section 4.
Now “Impeachment process” which invokes to terms: high crimes and misdemeanors “standard of review” is not a “legal” standard that we know and use in criminal law, it is it’s own standard–necessary to remove an official from office if it is proven that the person under impeachment violated his/her duty to “faithfully execute the laws of the land.”
Article I which applies to the “Executive Branch” of government (the branch housing the president) – states the following:
6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
-US Constitution, Article I, section 3, clauses 6 & 7.
Therefore, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court to hear the evidence brought forth by the House of Representative to determine if removal from office should take place.
“The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts.”
So how does the “Sixth Amendment” to the US Constitution apply to give “due process” and other rights to the person being impeached? Well it doesn’t apply. Because, this impeachment is not a criminal trial–and all lawyers know that the Sixth Amendment only attaches in criminal trials. A fact clearly overlooked by the “doctor” who propounds to be all knowing on the law. Guess the patient–the American democracy–needs a “second” opinion.
For those who want to know more about the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, it clearly states:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
-US Constitution, Amendment 6.
Because our nation’s founders were wise enough to have a separate process to determine if a president or a judge or other official has committed wrongdoing, the process is clearly designated as impeachment–not criminal–not civil. It is it’s own entity. Therefore, the rights that coincide with the 6th Amendment do not apply. The doctor is wrong–a second option must be had.
Lastly, the doctor opines that the Whistleblower should not be protected, but that would chill anyone, anywhere from ever speaking up when they see wrongdoing in our government. Specifically, the Whistleblower statute protects those who bring forth false claims. wrongdoing and protects the whistleblower from retaliation–something that would put every whistleblower in jeopardy–even potential physical harm or death if their name were to be revealed. Moreover, it would subject the one disclosing the name to civil liability–if not criminal liability if obstruction of justice or witness retaliation is taking place.
So Rand Paul–be careful what you wish for. The American democracy needs a second opinion–and not from you. This time the doctor who survived several physical blows by his neighbor–Rand Paul–might not weather the political blows of impeachment.
