11.4.19:
A bill of attainder may be argued as a normal bill requiring Senate approval and a POTUS signature, or a vote to over-ride a veto.
However, an idea occurred to me that you can argue that impeachment is a bill too. Since the House has sole power of impeachment, the other two requirements are not needed. If the House is like a Grand Jury, then Grand Juries can return indictments or a "nobill". If no indictment is returned, then there is "no bill", right? So, an indictment is a bill. In the case of impeachment then, it is a bill. If it is a bill which is solely partisan and without due process, then it can be argued that it is a bill of attainder. In which case, the presiding judge ( Chief Justice ) in case of impeachment trials, can rule as much and dismiss the case.
Since the Senate has already voted that it is an unlawful process, it would strengthen the hand that the case should be dismissed out of hand. It is a bill of attainder unless it satisfies the procedure set forth by the Constitution. It cannot be a merely political process, which some of these people seem to be arguing.
11.3.19:
Interesting question. If the Chief Justice decides that it is, he could dismiss the case out of hand. But will Chief Justice Roberts do that?
I wouldn't count on it, nor count it out.
The argument seems to be that an actual crime has to be specified. If they can't or won't, then it is a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.
COMMENTARY: Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder https://t.co/CB7Gm6Bu3L via @newsintheburg— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 3, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment