Bipartisan Legislation on Impeachment

[vcczar]

This might actually require an amendment. What I want to see if depoliticized impeachment investigations and trials. 

Here’s my plan, which you can all disagree with, if you wish. 

Impeachment investigations require the support of at least three people of another party than the one proposing impeachment. This is done in the House. Any proposed impeachment must come with proposed articles of impeachment and evidence for those.

Investigation will be carried out by a non-partisan group of investigators appointed by a special committee in the senate made of equal representation of the two major parties. Each member picks an investigator. Each investigator will submit a report given to impeachment managers and lawyers on both sides to use.

Politicians should not handle a trial.  That makes it political. So the Senate will have a special committee on impeachment and will take turns removing federal judges from consideration to act as jurors. The 12 remaining (least objectionable) will serve as jurors. The defendant will pick their own lawyers and managers, who cannot be holding elected or appointed office. The person who introduces impeachment will do so for the prosecution.  8 jurors will have to support conviction (2/3 of 12) for conviction.

The VP should be acting president during the trial (although not during investigation) and the president should probably have a gag order regarding investigation or trial.

Chief Justice should preside or select a substitute. 

 

 

[vcczar]

22 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

If the judiciary controls the impeachment trial, then members of the judicial branch will control the impeachment process for other members of the same branch, a pretty significant reduction of separation of powers (and risks losing a tool to reign in a runaway judiciary).

Then what alternate do you suggest that isn't the status quo? To make it non-partisan or non-political as possible. 

[Rezi]

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Then what alternate do you suggest that isn't the status quo? To make it non-partisan or non-political as possible. 

At this point it's become strikingly obvious that impeachment only helps the incumbent unless you have a really good reason for it. If this trend continues with Biden, then I'd imagine we should see some slowing down on constant impeachment. Then again, strategists are dumb and primary bases still love it, so who knows.

[vcczar]

5 minutes ago, Rezi said:

At this point it's become strikingly obvious that impeachment only helps the incumbent unless you have a really good reason for it. If this trend continues with Biden, then I'd imagine we should see some slowing down on constant impeachment. Then again, strategists are dumb and primary bases still love it, so who knows.

That may or may not be the case, but the purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas that could make it less politicized. So ideas, rather than defenses of the current system please.

[Pringles]

14 hours ago, vcczar said:

Impeachment investigations require the support of at least three people of another party than the one proposing impeachment. This is done in the House. Any proposed impeachment must come with proposed articles of impeachment and evidence for those.

I’d say this is the main point I agree with. I’d dub it a “Qualified Majority.” 

With this alone Biden wouldn’t be impeached at all, and Trumps first impeachment would have failed.

[Rezi]

15 hours ago, vcczar said:

Impeachment investigations require the support of at least three people of another party than the one proposing impeachment. This is done in the House.

The problem with this is that parties aren’t and shouldn’t be encoded into the constitution. Even if a party system is something that is inevitable, the constitution should remain worded as if they don’t exist.

Even if you do think it’s fine to codify political parties, then what if there’s only one party in the House, or what if it’s 433-2? These are possibilities that, while extremely unrealistic, must be controlled for and codifying a need for bipartisanship would deny that.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, Rezi said:

The problem with this is that parties aren’t and shouldn’t be encoded into the constitution. Even if a party system is something that is inevitable, the constitution should remain worded as if they don’t exist.

The Constitution shouldn't ignore reality. 

1 minute ago, Rezi said:

Even if you do think it’s fine to codify political parties, then what if there’s only one party in the House, or what if it’s 433-2? These are possibilities that while extremely unrealistic, must be controlled for and codifying a need for bipartisanship would deny that.

This is virtually impossible. And if the majority party opposes its own president it can certainly stop him or her. Most imbalanced US Senate we've had with the two major parties is 75-17. And House was 334-88. If Congress is ever 433-2, then there can be adjustments made to update the Constitution/impeachment laws.

[vcczar]

7 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Maybe define what high crimes and misdemeanors means?

Ok, that's a good route to go for this exercise. How would you define this?