The clamoring likes of Rep. Andrew Schiff, Conservative Review's Andrew C. McCarthy, the Washington Post's Deanna Paul, Professor Steve Vladeck, and others similarly ill-advised - the "Constitutional Deniers" - are intellectually and historically errant to suggest that the Constitution has no place in congressional proceedings and processes - especially impeachment proceedings.
These Constitutional Deniers use the hollow argument that impeachment is not a criminal process, therefore the Sixth Amendment does not apply.
The very fact that "High crimes and misdemeanors" are the entry point to begin the impeachment process seems to have evaded the Constitutional Deniers and the witless epigones of the Democratic Party.
Federalist 65 recognizes that the impeachment process is a matter of "Innocence or guilt" - alien terms in a civil proceeding.
The political impeachment process is inarguably intended to be quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal.
Echoing Senator Paul is the Supreme Court, repeatedly holding that the confrontation clause forbids the admission of untested statements deemed reliable solely by a judge or one acting in a judicial capacity, the House in impeachment proceedings.
The question goes far beyond evidentiary and procedural niceties and whether the rules of evidence or criminal procedure should apply to testimonial statements made in impeachment proceedings.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/impeachment_and_the_confrontation_clause.html
These Constitutional Deniers use the hollow argument that impeachment is not a criminal process, therefore the Sixth Amendment does not apply.
The very fact that "High crimes and misdemeanors" are the entry point to begin the impeachment process seems to have evaded the Constitutional Deniers and the witless epigones of the Democratic Party.
Federalist 65 recognizes that the impeachment process is a matter of "Innocence or guilt" - alien terms in a civil proceeding.
The political impeachment process is inarguably intended to be quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal.
Echoing Senator Paul is the Supreme Court, repeatedly holding that the confrontation clause forbids the admission of untested statements deemed reliable solely by a judge or one acting in a judicial capacity, the House in impeachment proceedings.
The question goes far beyond evidentiary and procedural niceties and whether the rules of evidence or criminal procedure should apply to testimonial statements made in impeachment proceedings.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/impeachment_and_the_confrontation_clause.html
No comments:
Post a Comment