Thanks ILikePie5
As per the rules of this debate, round one is for arguments only. I will respond to Pro’s arguments in the next round.
The question at hand in this debate is whether the constitution requires the defendant of a Senate impeachment trial to be in office at the time of the trial and subsequent vote. I will begin by providing some background and then move on to how it applies to the texts of the constitution.
Approach
Over the years there has been much debate over various passages of the constitution with regards to its meaning and application within our society. Opposing sides of this debate are normally categorized into one of two camps; originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted vs. non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture.
When the constitutionality of any law or action is contentiously litigated, the ultimate ruling often comes down to which of these approaches is applied by the majority. Because the issue being debated has little to do with changes in society or culture, non-originalism has no real application here. Therefore, it seems clear that we are working within the “originalist” framework, meaning that we are looking at what the framers intended at the time the constitution was written.
Origins of Impeachment
To understand the framer’s viewpoint on impeachment it is important to begin by understanding that this concept did not originate with them. Rather, this was a concept barrowed from England where impeachment was not only regularly used against former officials, but there was even a closely followed impeachment trial in progress in England during the drafting of the constitution and cited at the Philadelphia debates. Impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings began in 1785 upon his return to England after having resigned as an officer serving overseas [1].
This fact demonstrates that the understanding the framers had of the concept of impeachment prior to writing the constitution was in no way no way limited to serving officials. Thus, for any argument that the framer’s intended to limit impeachment to serving officers only to be considered logically valid, it must be supported with explicit examples of such intentions. It defies Occam’s razor to presume that they intended for impeachment to apply differently than what was universally understood at the time and yet never bothered to make such intentions clear.
Purpose of Impeachment
Few people will challenge the notion that the primary concern of the framers was to ensure a check on the power of the sitting president. But the fact that disqualification was also provided as an option for the Senate tells us that sitting presidents were not their only concern. The founders could have decided that they would designate elections be the sole process determining whether any individual should hold public office, but they granted the Senate the power to make this decision upon a guilty verdict. We don’t need a history lesson to understand what this tells us; the framers were very concerned about the prospect of a dangerous former official running for public office.
Impacts of the Resolution
The notion that an impeached President whose time in office runs out before his Senate trial can be completed contradicts everything we know about what the framers intended and frankly, defies common sense.
Impeachment is the political version of an indictment. That is, this is where charges are brought. Once an individual has been charged, the trial is where Congress makes its determination as to the defendant’s guilt. Pro’s position is that a charged individual escapes the consequences of conviction if his time in office runs out. If this is the case then the below necessarily follows;
1. Officials who abuse their office at the end of their term cannot be held politically liable
2. Any office holder can escape disqualification from holding future office if they resign prior to the Senate vote to convict
Both of these facts fly in the face of everything we know about the framers intent regarding impeachment and defending against the prospect of a dangerous candidate who threatens to destabilize our democracy.
Interpreting the Texts
Article I, Section 3, Clause 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. [2]
Once the House has impeached the President the articles move to the Senate where the constitution gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments”. This alone affirms the resolution. If the charges brought to the Senate are constitutional, and the Senate has the power to try “all” charges, then by extension the Senate has the power to try the charges brought. To argue otherwise is to argue that “all” in this passage actually means “all… except in a specific case which we never mentioned”. Such an argument would be a complete absurdity.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 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. [3]
This passage makes very clear that an officer being tried and convicted in an impeachment trial is no substitute for being legally prosecuted, highlighting the fact that these are two entirely separate processes and thus one cannot be used as a means of dismissing the other.
Article II, Section 4:
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. [4]
There is much contained within this passage, as this is the only passage anywhere in the constitution that mentions government officials subject to impeachment, any requirements of conviction, and what constitutes an impeachable offense, all in 31 words.
The vagueness of this passage is particularly notable, as one of the most contested phrases in the constitution is with regards to what the framers meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Gerald Ford famously defined this term as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.”
Summary
The claim that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional goes against everything we know about what the framers intended and any logical inference from the passages themselves. Other than two passages I did not cite (one stating that the House has sole power of impeachment, the other stating that presidential pardons do not apply to impeachment) everything else the constitution says about impeachment was cited above.
Pro’s position in this debate amounts to the framers understanding that impeachment had historically been used against former officials and yet decided to change this while making no mention of it anywhere, that they expressly gave the Senate the power to try “all impeachments” while really meaning “only impeachments on officials actively serving at the time of trial”, and they intended to give the Senate the power to disqualify former officials from running again while providing those officials a clear loophole to evade any such disqualification.
Any attempt to argue that all of this is true is merely an exercise of ascribing meaning to the passages that are not there.
Thank you for voting!
Thanks for the tip
> I spent 3 days writing my original 8,030-character RFV only to find the limit is 5,000. It is easier to rewrite it from scratch then squeeze it to fit
You can always use the comment section, and break it apart (if doing so, I suggest posting the end of it first for ease of reading). A common vote will state "RFD in comments" which so long as the RFD is easily accessible, it is fine to post wherever.
If you think your biases will get on the way of a fair vote then I’m certainly in agreement with you, but you are always welcome to cast a tie vote and provide your feedback as an RFD.
Your welcome, but I probably won't vote. I am too biased. The only way I would probably vote in your favor, is if you just completely demolished your opponent. Like not even debatavle, he was just absolutely crushed. That rarely happens in these types of debates
Thank you for your interest in voting! I hope you enjoy!
I hate trump with every fiber of my being. I am not sure I can vote fairly but I will try. So hard to be unbiased when voting on a modern day figure of hate. Good luck to both of you
I’ve asked Chris and Ragnar to vote on the debate, they’re extremely objective in their analysis.
I don’t want you to change your vote. People are going to disagree and that’s fine. The time to say something in my opinion is when voters are not basing their votes on the debate itself.
As I wrote this it happened again, this time in reverse.
FLDW, the below criticism applies to yourself as well. Maybe it’s a thing on this site I don’t know. But I’m shutting up about it now...
Thanks for voting!
I think you're just unhappy that you lost, and you are biased in support of your belief that you won (as anyone would be .... like obviously you weren't playing to lose lol). But we'll see if others agree or disagree. I'm not changing my vote because the guy I gave the L to disagrees with that decision.
Actually, correction, Pro did attack my use of sources... my misciting of George Mason, who I never cited.
Or, maybe you should have read the debate before voting on it.
Almost nothing in your RFD reflected what was actually argued. Pro never claimed disqualification was separate process. You even stated in your RFD that he missed this point, but yet your vote was largely based in this so your vote clearly has nothing to do with the debate.
Pro also never attacked my sources or my understanding of them, so thank you for further confirming your bias.
Also, use of "they" to refer to a singular person is grammatical anathema. To the extent anyone did that, they should reflect on their life choices. The word "they" cannot be non-ambiguously used to refer to singular persons. If you want to avoid using gendered language (which, frankly, is stupid) you need only refer to PRO or CON.
Your comment is makes no sense, just like your idea to "remove bias" by replacing the word "trump." This is absurd.
Maybe you just didn't read his case carefully enough. Or your own sources. Which you should have.
“ But the plain language of the rest of Cl. 7 makes clear that this is a separate procedure than impeachment... the fact that the legislature may separately vote to disqualify him from holding future office is irrelevant”
I really hate responding to the judges but this was not Pro’s argument, it’s yours. Your RFD wasn’t based on the debate.
Have fun being judgemental, I'm sorry would you prefer the verb "mitigate"? Furthermore, you can say its simple as much as you like - I'll go through my own analysis. Have fun with all that bias there bud.
yep
Bias? You think you're going to eliminate "bias" by replacing Trump's name through the debate? lol
To quote Biden, come on.
This is a simple debate that turns on straightforward issues.
Thanks for voting!
Thank you for your interest in voting!
I will be taking Ragnar's advice and copying your debate into a google doc and replacing Donald Trump with President X - this is to eliminate bias in me - look forward to reading this debate more indepth.
Please vote!
I highly advise judges try to think not in terms of Mr. Trump, but in terms of a hypothetical president Mr. X., or even Mr. Orange.