Expunging the impeachment of President Trump
Article by Arnold Cusmariu in "The American Thinker":
Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) said this during a Fox News interview:
When we're back in charge, we can have a vote, we can have a resolution that would seek to expunge the impeachment. I don't know if it will carry any legal weight but we can send a loud message when we come back in that this was a political partisan effort.
President Trump agreed, characterizing his impeachment as "a total political hoax," adding that it should be erased.
How might this be done now in a way that "carries legal weight"?
There is enough material in four articles I have published in American Thinker here, here, here, and here to warrant petitioning the Supreme Court to void the two articles of impeachment against President Trump, clearing the way for their expungement from official House records.
Below is an airtight logic chain. A methodical, step-by-step approach has the best chance of surviving the onslaught of objections that will be unleashed.
Step 1: Impeachment implies indictment.
Comment: The Framers could (should?) have used the term "indictment" instead of the term "impeachment" in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Step 2: Indictment implies due process of law.
Comment: The Fifth Amendment says so.
Step 3: Due process of law implies procedural due process rights (PDPRs).
Comment: The Supreme Court said so.
Therefore,
Step 4: Impeachment implies PDPRs.
Comment: Derived from Steps 1–3 by a rule of logic called Hypothetical Syllogism applied several times.
Step 5: House impeachment proceedings denied President Trump his constitutionally protected PDPRs.
Comment: I argued this in my articles, as did President Trump's lawyers.
Step 6: If impeachment implies PDPRs and House impeachment proceedings denied President Trump his constitutionally protected PDPRs, then House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: This seems to me a near tautology, but I will leave it to lawyers to defend it.
Therefore,
Step 7: House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: Derived from Steps 4–6 by Modus Ponens.
Step 8: If House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution, then the Supreme Court ought to rule that they did.
Comment 1: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that Supreme Court powers identified in Article III of the Constitution extend to impeachment proceedings.
Comment 2: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that the Supreme Court has an obligation to rule that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution as part of its Oath of Affirmation obligation to support and defend the Constitution.
Therefore,
Step 9: The Supreme Court ought to rule that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: From Steps 7 and 8 by Modus Ponens.
Step 10: If the Supreme Court rules that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution, then the Supreme Court ought to void the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Comment: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that Supreme Court powers identified in Article III of the Constitution extend to voiding articles of impeachment.
Therefore,
Step 11: The Supreme Court ought to void the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Comment: Derived from Steps 9 and 10 by Modus Ponens.
Step 12: If the Supreme Court voids the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump, then President Trump's lawyers are constitutionally entitled to have them expunged from official House records.
Comment 1: I will leave it to President Trump's lawyers to argue, perhaps before the Supreme Court again, that the Constitution allows this connection.
Comment 2: The lawyers can argue that nothing in the Constitution grants the party in political control of the House of Representatives absolute power to decide what is to be done with official House records.
Therefore,
Step 13: President Trump's lawyers are constitutionally entitled to have the two articles of impeachment against President Trump expunged from official House records.
Comment: Derived from Steps 11 and 12 by Modus Ponens; QED.
When we're back in charge, we can have a vote, we can have a resolution that would seek to expunge the impeachment. I don't know if it will carry any legal weight but we can send a loud message when we come back in that this was a political partisan effort.
President Trump agreed, characterizing his impeachment as "a total political hoax," adding that it should be erased.
How might this be done now in a way that "carries legal weight"?
There is enough material in four articles I have published in American Thinker here, here, here, and here to warrant petitioning the Supreme Court to void the two articles of impeachment against President Trump, clearing the way for their expungement from official House records.
Below is an airtight logic chain. A methodical, step-by-step approach has the best chance of surviving the onslaught of objections that will be unleashed.
Step 1: Impeachment implies indictment.
Comment: The Framers could (should?) have used the term "indictment" instead of the term "impeachment" in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Step 2: Indictment implies due process of law.
Comment: The Fifth Amendment says so.
Step 3: Due process of law implies procedural due process rights (PDPRs).
Comment: The Supreme Court said so.
Therefore,
Step 4: Impeachment implies PDPRs.
Comment: Derived from Steps 1–3 by a rule of logic called Hypothetical Syllogism applied several times.
Step 5: House impeachment proceedings denied President Trump his constitutionally protected PDPRs.
Comment: I argued this in my articles, as did President Trump's lawyers.
Step 6: If impeachment implies PDPRs and House impeachment proceedings denied President Trump his constitutionally protected PDPRs, then House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: This seems to me a near tautology, but I will leave it to lawyers to defend it.
Therefore,
Step 7: House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: Derived from Steps 4–6 by Modus Ponens.
Step 8: If House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution, then the Supreme Court ought to rule that they did.
Comment 1: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that Supreme Court powers identified in Article III of the Constitution extend to impeachment proceedings.
Comment 2: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that the Supreme Court has an obligation to rule that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution as part of its Oath of Affirmation obligation to support and defend the Constitution.
Therefore,
Step 9: The Supreme Court ought to rule that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution.
Comment: From Steps 7 and 8 by Modus Ponens.
Step 10: If the Supreme Court rules that House impeachment proceedings violated the Constitution, then the Supreme Court ought to void the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Comment: I will leave it to lawyers to argue that Supreme Court powers identified in Article III of the Constitution extend to voiding articles of impeachment.
Therefore,
Step 11: The Supreme Court ought to void the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Comment: Derived from Steps 9 and 10 by Modus Ponens.
Step 12: If the Supreme Court voids the House's two articles of impeachment against President Trump, then President Trump's lawyers are constitutionally entitled to have them expunged from official House records.
Comment 1: I will leave it to President Trump's lawyers to argue, perhaps before the Supreme Court again, that the Constitution allows this connection.
Comment 2: The lawyers can argue that nothing in the Constitution grants the party in political control of the House of Representatives absolute power to decide what is to be done with official House records.
Therefore,
Step 13: President Trump's lawyers are constitutionally entitled to have the two articles of impeachment against President Trump expunged from official House records.
Comment: Derived from Steps 11 and 12 by Modus Ponens; QED.
Post a Comment