Instigator / Pro
28
1531
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#2821

Resolved: The Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump in the United States Senate was Unconstitutional

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...

ILikePie5
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

RESOLVED: The Impeachment Trial of Donald John Trump in the United States Senate was Unconstitutional

For this debate the Structure is as follows:

R1: Arguments Only
R2: Rebuttals to R1
R3: Rebuttals to R2
R4: Closing Statements (No New Arguments)

For the purpose of this debate:

Constitution - a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the United States is governed. It was drafted by the Constitutional Convention and later supplemented by the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Unconstitutional - not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

U.S. Senate - the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—constitutes the legislature of the United States.

Most definitions for the purpose of this debate will come in the debate itself from the U.S. Constitution; these are just some general definitions, which have been discussed with my opponent prior to start.

-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R

Precedent becomes a weird thing. The result of the recent trail, will be evidence in future impeachment trials; yet any case could be argued that the senate interpreted the constitution wrong or otherwise acted against it.

I vividly remember the first impeachment of Trump, and the repeated claims by GOP senators that impeachment of a sitting president is unconstitutional... Which that level of unbridled stupidity in the senate, is suggestive of deeper problems with the system.

-->
@Barney

Eh, it was worth a shot. I understand though, thanks for trying.

-->
@fauxlaw

I understand what you wrote, I do not understand what your are writing in response to. I don't believe I have expressed anything in opposition to what you just stated.

-->
@ILikePie5

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. When I said in the debate that historical precedent was not a strong argument for whether the trial was constitutional everyone seemed to think I was crazy, so I'm trying to understand if it was just me.

I don't know how else I can put it. Senate precedent either matters or it does not, yet you're arguing both at the same time. It matters to the resolution when it supports your position, but if it doesn't support your position then it doesn't matter because the trial is unconstitutional anyway. It's having your cake and eating it too.

-->
@Double_R

"Finally, the Framers made one exception to the legislature's exclusive role in the impeachment process that promotes integrity in the proceedings. While the Presiding Officer of the Senate (typically the Vice President of the United States) usually presides at impeachment trials, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides in the event that the President of the United States is tried.14 This provision ensures that a Vice President shall not preside over proceedings that could result in his own elevation to the presidency, a particularly important concern at the time of the founding, when Presidents and Vice Presidents were not elected on the same ticket and could belong to rival parties.15"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C6-1-2/ALDE_00000707/

Powerful bit, a shame the link was broken. I sadly can't edit anything inside debates (had I such power, both parties would have to agree to such error correction).

If tackling this topic again, I do suggest outright highlighting that as a full quotation.

-->
@Double_R

Are you of a mind that if it is not in the Constitution, it doesn't exist? Just Article I, 8 describes the 17 [or 18] items of legislative purpose the Congress has to enact, that are not defined in the Constitution other than by naming the categories of legislation Congress is allowed to act upon. As for Senate or House "precedent," that concept belongs to the Court as it affects law, but if something is intended to be "precedent" in Congress, it had best be defined within their perspective rules of procedure, as the Constitution requires. One example: lthe Senate and the House have both adopted a principle that the sitting President cannot by indicted for a crime while in office. However, Congress has never passed a law stating that that. The concept is derived from a DoJ policy dating from AG John Mitchell [Nixon], who stated that as DOJ policy. But it is jus6 policy, and the proper reading of the Constitution in 18th century syntax clearly advises that no such interdiction of indictment exists. [Article I, section 3, clause 7] The keyword is "nevertheless," which, in the 18th century, had the connotation of saying "all the above notwithstanding," or, more simply stated, "except that..." And that is why the Constitution should be understood by originalist standards, not non-originalist. We cannot simply assume that its language is a leaf that floats with the whimsey of the wind.

-->
@Double_R

“So in other words... the constitutionality of a senate trial isn’t determined by what previous senates did.
Did I hear wrong?”

I don’t know what you’re trying to insinuate. If the Senate declares something constitutional, it doesn’t necessarily make it constitutional. I explained this. If their actions are constitutional per the Constitution, then the precedent matters

-->
@fauxlaw

I don’t understand why you call Pelosi holding the articles an unconstitutional act when the constitution doesn’t say anything about it. McConnell made clear that the trial wouldn’t have gotten underway till Trump was already out, so holding the articles to give him an opportunity to mount a defense and the senate an opportunity to get settled in seemed like common sense.

-->
@fauxlaw

That was the impression I got from your RFD, if your position is that senate precedent doesn’t matter with regards to the resolution (as I am hearing now) then I’m not sure why you brought it up, but ok then. Apologies for misunderstanding.

-->
@ILikePie5

So in other words... the constitutionality of a senate trial isn’t determined by what previous senates did.

Did I hear wrong?

-->
@Double_R

Now, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that a Senate acquitting a former officer sets precedent. The vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of holding a trial was voted incorrectly. Again, Article II, 4 clearly stipulates their proper role: Only a current officer should be put on trial of impeachment. Even though the impeachment came during that officer's [in this case, the President] term, the proposed trial was not, merely by the constitutional declaration of the end of his term having occurred. A trial to remove him from office, should he have been found guilty, was, itself, unconstitutional, regardless of what the outcome of trial would be. In this instance, Nancy Pelosi might have had her heart's desire to see Trump convicted by the Senate before the end of his term, but she, herself, by her own mud-stuck stick, delayed delivery of the Article of Impeachment, which was, itself, as I explained, an unconstitutional act in the first place. The whole thing was a Pelosi charade, start to finish. Someday, some of these people are going to read, and comprehend, the Document they have sworn to uphold; they have failed to do so, so far.

-->
@Double_R

“So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.

That’s all. Thank you for explaining.”

Precedents aren’t absolute. If they were, Scott v Sanford would still be the law of the land. I already mentioned that precedents that are inherently unconstitutional should not be entertained. The Belknap trial would be a constitutional precedent that showed former holders cannot be convicted. If a future Senate were to convict they’d still be acting in an unconstitutional manner.

-->
@ILikePie5
@fauxlaw

So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.

That’s all. Thank you for explaining.

-->
@Double_R

No. The verbiage of the Constitution, Article II, 4, is quite clear in the provision that only a President, VP, or other officer of government can be impeached and convicted because anyone else is no longer such an officer. That we hang the moniker "former" on someone notwithstanding, since that officer is not longer a sitting officer, and since removal from office is the first of two potential punishments [and the second cannot be entertained without the first], is of no consequence. That a future Senate might do so [I acknowledge the possibility] would simply be acting unconstitutionally, Just as the House, in both Trump impeachments, acted unconstitutionally in their processes of impeachment. In that case, the violation is not specifically listed constitutionally, however, the Constitution does dictate that both houses shall determine their rules of procedure in regard to impeachment and trial, and the House was in violation of their own rules in both impeachments. To wit: in neither case is the House to initiate impeachment proceedings without first having a full House vote to initiate committee investigation, in the Judiciary Committee, by the way, and not Intel. Further, they are to consult witnesses in open committee, then present findings to the full House to vote whether to proceed with impeachment, and then eventually vote to impeach, or not. The entire House process, in both impeachments, did not follow their own rules. By the way, just for your edification, the Supreme Court has established at least two precedent findings that neither House or Senate can conduct investigations at all, regardless of subject, until their respective full chambers vote on the floor to initiate a committee investigation which must, first, have legislative purpose [as such, impeachment is a legislative function], and must show what that purpose is. In other words, some action other than simply finding malfeasance must be defined before any congressional committee can be launched. You do not even find the word "investigation" in the Constitution, yet, they do with abandon, and have violated this entire principle since 1793. No wonder pelple have such disregard for Congress. They are mostly employed in doing work properly reserved for the DOJ, and not doing the work of the people.

-->
@Double_R

“Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?”

No. The Constitution doesn’t allow impeachment’s and convictions of private citizens period. If they did, it would be unconstitutional and I’d personally sue all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide.

-->
@ILikePie5
@fauxlaw

Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?

-->
@Barney

“Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal).”

I provided a source but for some reason it never linked. I thought it was my error at first, but my “1” shows up underlined with blue font so something went wrong. Since you’re a mod, I thought I’d ask if there is a way to fix that? I left the url in comment #14. Thanks either way.

-->
@ILikePie5

Always welcome. You did superb job of proper interpretation of the Constitution in this debate. It takes a bit of understanding 18th century syntax, but not much.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for voting!

-->
@Barney

Thanks for voting!

RFD 1 of 3.

My general takeaway is that the senate went about the impeachment trial in non-constitutional ways, not that impeaching a president or thereafter holding a trial inherently were in violation. That as a private citizen a former office holder can face normal criminal charges for their actions in office, was an excellent point to support this theme of how pointless holding a trial after they’ve left office is; however, I was not convinced that it would outright be unconstitutional, merely a waste of time (intuitively, both democrats and republicans are probably disappointed said criminal trials do not seem to occur with any regularity… I could have sworn each side promised to lock up the other’s presidential nominee for 2016).

In essence con was caught in a couple Catch-22s:
I. The actions of the senate could be considered constitutional because they did it, setting a new precedent and all that; but con was insisting from the outset that we should stick to an originalist interpretation, even while admitting there’s bizarre things like a Trump presidency they never could have imagined.
II. the senate only being able to try Mr. Trump if trying him as the president, but then deciding to not use the judge required for trying the president. This is a having your cake and eating it too kind of situation.

Well I feel sources lean toward pro, con did an adequate job engaging with them for me to leave this within the tied range.

And here is my thought stream from while reading through the contentions:

---PRO---
1. Chief Justice
A pretty good opening, and it immediately just seems weird that they wouldn't have the chief justice preside to minimize issues.
So pro points out the constitution requires the chief justice for the president.
Con defends on sementiuc grounds that it is the chief justice who is unconstitutional if he is not presiding, not the senate. Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal). And finally that were such a clause in the constitution, that would unduly give the Chief Justice too much power in that he could decide if an impeachment trial will occur or not.
Pro leverages con insting an ex president can be impeached as a president to enhance the impacts on this point. He hammers on that the articles of impeachment drawn by the senate target the president, therefore as they are written requiring the Chief Justice.
Some back and forth nit-picking with the phrase “only current”
Note: I really don't see the big deal, but pro is hedging out ahead on this.

2. Trial of a Private Citizen in the Senate
Pro argues Trump is ineligible for impeachment due to being now out of office. The logic even includes Biden's failure to appoint him to challalor or something to make him eligible for impeachment. He does better in pointing to issues of former office holders such as VPs perhaps being able to gain weird power if current and former were interchangeable.
Con counters that there is no explicit limit stated as it would be if the word “only,” were included. Then builds toward it being a safeguard against someone's actions as president, which their central thesis is they should be able to be tried even afterwards.
Pro argues they must be removed from office before they can be barred from future service, and goes so far as to claim such power would allow them to impeach anyone from the presidency regardless of if they have ever been in politics (a rather obvious slippery slope, but we'll see if it's challenged). And finally an appeal to simplicity that it is easier to understand his take on the wording of the constitution. This basically ends with the slippery slope repeated, and an appeal to tradition that the founding fathers wanted to curb the power of congress against private citizens (whereas con complaints that pro uses that phrase too much... as a reader of this debate, repeating that phrase lets me follow the thread of argument throughout the rounds, so I am quite grateful for it).

Other parts of cons case (specifically Origins of Impeachment) address this better than his direct replies.

3. Past Impeachments/Trials
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Delahay, and the lack of a trial after his resignation. This certainly suggests a trial is not mandatory.
Pro brings up the impeachment of Secretary of War Belknap, who was acquitted due to lack of jurisdiction even when he abused his office on the way out.
"Secretary of War" is such a cooler title than Defense, since really when have we been invaded?
Pro brings up the impeachment of Judge Kent, and the trial being dropped due to him resigning. This affirms a trial is not mandatory.
Con gets off to a bad start in rebuttals: "previous senate’s do not determine the constitutionality of future senate’s actions" which is kinda the opposite of how our courts operate.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Delahay case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time, but this does not take it off the table for consideration in how future impeachments are handled.
Con excels in the Belknap case, by pointing out the trial indeed proceeded following the vote to determine if they had jurisdiction. ... I expect a lot more back and forth on this.
Con does well in pointing out the flaw in the Kent case of them choosing he wasn't worth their time.
Pro defends "judicial precedents carry weight" which is common knowledge (see my above comment). Builds this up on the Belknap case with "defendant was acquitted not on evidentiary grounds but on jurisdictional grounds establishes this precedent" and a powerful quote by Luther Martin.
Pro closes this section out with an appeal to the lack of an "or" in the rules, tying back to the issues over ", and"
While I agree with con about the first and third demonstrating disinterest rather than binding law for how it must be done, his insistence that past impeachments have no bearing on the constitutionality of future ones doesn't hold up.
Coulter examples from the USA of constitutional interpretations in line with his case really would have been ideal.

---CON---
Con does a nice informative opening, in which he insists he should use an originalist framework for interpreting the constitution, and that precedents matter (specifically ones from England). Before building the logic that the founding fathers intended the senate to be able to keep former elected officials they deemed dangerous from ever holding office again, and that the loophole of no longer in office is stupid.
Pro counters that there's no reason precedents should only come from England and not various senate trials to include ones which set the actual rules of impeachment.
Apparently in England private citizens could be impeached even if they have not held office, to which our constitution seems to outright reject.
Pro counters the purpose of impeachment by pointing to non-elected offices a former VP could appoint their buddy to if there was not the power to bar from office in the impeachments (seems like a good safety net to have).
Pro goes into a slippery slope fallacy of suggesting a potential future desire to impeach Washington (R.I.P., he apparently “passed away decades ago.”) if Trump is impeached.
Con does some defenses, to include a great point that hopefully future debates like this will lead with: "when drafting an instructional document such as the constitution, not every question needs to be answered. Some prospective scenarios are just so preposterous that it would not have been worth the framers time and effort to address."

I got to say that this debate felt a little hamstrung by the rules for what had to be in each round. While no new points in the final round is good, the other limits made the flow feel oddly restrictive. Con even commented on this right at the end of the debate.

-->
@Double_R

Looks like I’m on track to win. GGs

-->
@FLRW

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While thematically at least touching on some of the broad strokes of the debate, this is a clear case of outside content over the actual debate. The debaters did not mention "Jamie Raskin," a "January Exception," or "what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday."

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.

Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************

FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
ILikePie5 starts by saying that he Constitution clearly states the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers are the only people subject to conviction, not private citizens such as Mr. Trump. This is not true because Articles One and Two of the Constitution talk about impeachment. Nowhere do they expressly limit this power to sitting or current office holders. And a long standing trope of legal argument is, if a law doesn't tell you you can't do something, you basically have the green light unless a court or some other entity tells you otherwise. Second, and I think more compelling, [is] public policy. A lot of people point out the perverse incentives that would be created if you couldn't impeach someone who has just left the office. Jamie Raskin, the House manager, says there's no January exception to impeachment. The idea is that people might be emboldened to engage in misbehavior in the dwindling days of their tenure knowing full well that they couldn't be held accountable through impeachment, at least. And finally, contrary to what Trump's team argued in some of their filings yesterday, this case isn't moot just because Trump is now a private citizen. Among the punishments for impeachment, of course, [are] not just removal from office, but also disqualification from holding future federal office. And since Trump is, of course, a one-term president, he otherwise would be eligible to run again in 2024. So this is a very consequential proceeding.

-->
@Puachu

Thank you for voting!

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the tip

-->
@Puachu

> 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.

-->
@Bringerofrain

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.

-->
@ILikePie5

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

-->
@Bringerofrain

Thank you for your interest in voting! I hope you enjoy!

-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R

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

-->
@Double_R

I’ve asked Chris and Ragnar to vote on the debate, they’re extremely objective in their analysis.

-->
@coal
@FLRW

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...

-->
@FLRW

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.

-->
@coal

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Your comment is makes no sense, just like your idea to "remove bias" by replacing the word "trump." This is absurd.

-->
@Double_R

Maybe you just didn't read his case carefully enough. Or your own sources. Which you should have.

-->
@coal

“ 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.

-->
@coal

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.

-->
@ILikePie5

yep

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@coal

Thanks for voting!

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thank you for your interest in voting!

-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R

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.

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@MisterChris
@gugigor

Please vote!