05-12-2024, 08:22 AM
Well, if it does, and those charges were committed by Trump while he was in office, our founders provided a specific due process procedure in our Constitution to deal with public servants who violate their office of public trust SOURCE, and that would include a President, who is accused of engaging in acts consider to be criminal and violate his office of public trust.
In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant who engages in criminal conduct while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .
. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
Find latest posts
View Articles
View Blog Entries
Connect With Us