That’s all well and good but, as my dawg just put it, what if the party holding the majority in Congress happens to be (more or less) the president’s party ?
Exactly, I told him, good dawg ! And this is a systemic institutional flaw : how could « the FF » (the fist-fuckers ?), whose purported wisdom led them to implement checks and balances for each part of government (xcept the deep state…), go along with the idea that the conclusion of an impeachment process motivated by a president’s failure to comply with the Constitution would be left at the hands of a partisan majority, particularly at the very start of a new presidential term ? Was the will to protect the power of the presidency so strong to them and to all their successors that the necessity to preserve the Constitution came second ?…
“Woof !”, my dawg replied, and I don’t know exactly what he meant by that.
Yet, not only is this fundamental institutional flaw crucial in removing a culprit from office (and God knows some have the ultraviolet word written on their foreheads), it also means the House of Representatives, should it by a simple majority reject an objectively warranted impeachment, would create de facto constitutional jurisprudence, while in theory the Constitution can only be modified by a two-third majority.
« [There is] a poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves. » – Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1952
You saw it too, didn’t ya, ol’ scoundrel, the Japs notwithstanding…
“In 1998, the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter made waves when she wrote that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. Coulter was roundly – and rightly – condemned for suggesting that the murder of the President might be justified, but her conceptual linking of presidential impeachment and assassination was not entirely unfounded. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin had made the same linkage over two hundred years earlier, when he noted at the Constitutional Convention that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal – impeachment – would be preferable.”