Sunday, October 20, 2019

Law Professors Sign On To Chemerisnky Letter On Impeachment

Three hundred law professors signed on to a letter authored by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley School of Law.  

The letter is in response to White House Counsel Cippoline's misleading comments about the impeachment process.  Among those was a remark that the House of Representatives must vote to authorize an impeachment investigation before one may begin.  A backlash began immediately with lawyers demanding that Cippoline's letter be retracted.  Dean Chemerinsky felt it important that law professors weigh in.

The letter states in part:  “Quite the contrary, the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins,” the law professors’ letter reads. “Cipollone wrongly condemns the impeachment inquiry as the House ‘seeking to overturn the result of the 2016 election.’ This fails to recognize the seriousness of the charges against President Trump for abusing executive power for personal political gain and violating federal election law.” 

To read the complete letter click here.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/human_rights/2019/10/law-professors-sign-on-to-chemerisnky-letter-on-impeachment.html

| Permalink

Comments

Important. But it is, much more complicated than that. What the letter of the counsel to the president claims among others, is that, press conference, can't be sufficient for launching a formal inquiry for impeaching the president let alone. A fool vote in the House was needed for it according to the letter, here I quote:

" Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter- branch conflict contemplated under our Constitutions by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced as " official impeachment inquiry ".

So, it is well known issue.The constitution provides that the House has sole power. Some may interpret it as fool vote ( which is reasonable ) the only counter argument, is that, the House has simply the power to do it so. Is is sufficient ? Let alone while impeaching an acting president ? That's the issue. The Supreme court ruled that the House can do it so. But, just because it is the House. Not because it is in conformity with due process, or, that it should be implied so, on an acting president ( Nixon v. US, not the president, but the federal judge at the time).

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Oct 21, 2019 4:45:53 AM

Just correction to my comment :

Should be " full vote " of course, not " fool vote " as written ( "Full house vote "in fact ).

Apologizing .....

Posted by: El roam | Oct 21, 2019 5:02:10 AM

Post a comment