House Democrats in Direct Violation of the Constitution

by

       M. Richard Maxson

      The Democrats in the House of Representatives are in direct violation of the Constitution with their abnormal attempt at impeachment. I say the Democrats because not one member of the other party voted for it. They have disgusting framed their charges as an attack on democracy and wrapped their narrative in red, white, and blue to try to convince the country that THEY are right and Constitutional originalists are wrong. We will get to the direct violation in a moment. First a few wrds from these originalists.

           

                           "The impeachment of President Trump is Un-Constitutional.”

                                           - Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz (D)

      Professor Dershowitz rubuking the House Democrats hand-picked “experts” stated, that a president could be impeached for gross abuse of office. “That’s just not in the Constitution. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s only four criteria for impeachment: treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Abuse of office is not one of them. It would be unconstitutional to impeach the president on these grounds. And the message has to be, Congress is not above the law. They keep saying the president's not above the law. That's right. Congress is not above the law. They can't make it up as they go along. They can't make up crimes. We've had people saying, “Oh, disclosing the name of the whistleblower would be a crime" — no, it's not. Obstruction of justice — that's not a crime. Collusion — that's not a crime. The phone call — that's not a crime. You can't just make it up. To have a crime, you have to find something in the statute book that existed before the actions took place, and that was clear and unequivocal. It's just not there.”

       “This is a dark chapter in American history, an ugly chapter. The fact is that THIS impeachment is perhaps not un-Constitutional, but it is anti-Constitutional. It is a terrible mistake for our country”

          - Ken Starr, Former federal Judge, Solicitor General, and Independent              

                                                Council of the Clinton impeachment.

      If there was ever a person who knows about impeachment, it’s Starr. He weighed in on what has been discussed and has his verdict. His assessment is that, “No crime was proven. Nothing he did even comes close to a crime. In fact, Trump was doing the right thing when he spoke with Ukraine’s president. The foreign relations of the United States are, above all, entrusted to the person who we elect," Starr continued. "This is a terrible interference, what is unfolding. It's a terrible interference with what the president does at the most sensitive level -- which is a person-to-person conversation with another leader. And I think it's an erosion of presidential power, which is unfortunate." Starr claimed it was within the scope of Trump's authority to ask for a favor and said affairs of state and foreign relations are one of the chief functions of the office of the president. There you have it. The man who led the country’s last impeachment investigation announced that no crime was proven. He also stated that this could be considered as an “attempted coup.”

      As to the Constitutional violation.Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is when the legislature declares the guilt of a person or group of persons, and punishes them without due process (the benefit of a trial).

      In Britain, bills of attainder were used as a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial, and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. Such actions were seen as tyrannical, and the Founding Fathers did not wish to give the new federal government those same kinds of powers. Some states, prior to the Constitution, did use attainders against British loyalists, but the practice all but disappeared after the Constitution so specifically forbid the use of attainders by the U.S. Congress.

      Prohibiting the use of bills of attainder serves a number of purposes. One purpose is that by disallowing the bills of attainder the separation of powers is reinforced. By disallowing bills of attainder, it literally forbids the legislature from performing judicial functions. Another purpose is in regard to the protection of the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

      A clear violation regarding bills of attainder arose regarding President Obama’s treatment of British Petroleum. The President considered BP guilty of the crime of spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and demanded they pay retribution without the benefit of due process. However, the argument was that the President did not legislate a bill of attainder, and therefore was innocent of acting in an unconstitutional manner.

      In reality, that made him even more guilty of violating the Constitution (again), for it was evidence that President Obama was acting in lieu of the Judiciary and Legislature. In other words, he took on their authorities without even the consideration that what he was doing was a usurpation of the powers of the other branches of government.

       The true danger of a bill of attainder is that such a legislative act inflicts punishment without a judicial trial, and takes away the life, liberty or property of the target.

                                       - Constitution Instructor Douglas V. Gibbs

      This is a disgusting attempt at a power grab by the minority party that has lost touch with the majority of Americans. Democrats have been relying on the news media to hype up the whistleblower’s complaint but it has not worked. Recent polls show that the President did nothing wrong 72%-28% and when asked if they thought the impeachment was “rigged” they agreed 75%-25%.