Copied As soon as House Democrats adopted two articles of impeachment against President Trump Dec. 18, they started making demands about how the Republican-controlled Senate should conduct the president's impeachment trial.
Specifically, House Democrats want Senate Republicans to subpoena witnesses who the House refused to call during its impeachment proceedings.
The most prominent airing of this argument so far is an op-ed in The New York Times by law professors Neal Katyal and Joshua Geltzer, and former Rep. Marvin "Mickey" Edwards, R-Okla. They say that the Senate's impeachment trial rules give Roberts the sole power to issue subpoenas.
The three-point to Rule V of the impeachment rules, which states: "The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce any such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide." These authors are brilliant and exhibit their creative side in their op-ed.
If their reading of the impeachment rules is correct, the chief justice could ignore the Senate and call witnesses as he pleases.
The Senate would obviously not go along with this, since Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution states that the Senate has "The sole Power to try all Impeachments." Even if Katyal, Geltzer and Edwards' reading of Rule V was correct, that rule would be unconstitutional and their argument would fail anyway.
If the witnesses that Trump critics are demanding were all that critical to the House's impeachment case, one would think that the House would have at least attempted to secure their testimony.
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/trump-trial-can-chief-justice-roberts-call-witnesses-without-senate
Specifically, House Democrats want Senate Republicans to subpoena witnesses who the House refused to call during its impeachment proceedings.
The most prominent airing of this argument so far is an op-ed in The New York Times by law professors Neal Katyal and Joshua Geltzer, and former Rep. Marvin "Mickey" Edwards, R-Okla. They say that the Senate's impeachment trial rules give Roberts the sole power to issue subpoenas.
The three-point to Rule V of the impeachment rules, which states: "The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce any such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide." These authors are brilliant and exhibit their creative side in their op-ed.
If their reading of the impeachment rules is correct, the chief justice could ignore the Senate and call witnesses as he pleases.
The Senate would obviously not go along with this, since Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution states that the Senate has "The sole Power to try all Impeachments." Even if Katyal, Geltzer and Edwards' reading of Rule V was correct, that rule would be unconstitutional and their argument would fail anyway.
If the witnesses that Trump critics are demanding were all that critical to the House's impeachment case, one would think that the House would have at least attempted to secure their testimony.
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/trump-trial-can-chief-justice-roberts-call-witnesses-without-senate
No comments:
Post a Comment