The sycophant media have rushed to report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has at last sent her single, desultory “Article of Impeachment” to the Senate for a trial.
Sic transit gloria mundi — or, more specifically, “how low can the sun sink after already having sunk on the American republic?”
The deluded and foolhardy majority in the House of Representatives, in other words, wants to exercise its Constitutional power of impeachment (to call for the removal of a federal official from office) after the fact — against a private citizen who no longer holds any federal office.
Is there any precedent at all for this sort of thing? Let us travel back in time to see . . .
Set the time machine dial back 1,124 years, shall we, to January 897? Look what happened then to the hapless former Pope Formosus, in the notorious “Cadaver Synod“:
. . . Nine months after Formosus died, his body was exhumed and made to sit on a throne so that he could face the charges levied against him by the then Pope Stephen VI. Dressed in all the fineries of papal vestments, Formosus faced accusations of perjury, coveting the papacy as a layman, and violating church canons while he was pope. Defended by a mere deacon and obviously incapable of defending himself, the dead Pope was found guilty on all counts.
. . .
Formosus was found guilty. He was literally stripped of his robes and deprived his title as pope. Then they cut off the three fingers he used to bless people and reburied the naked corpse in a commoner’s grave.
And just how did the public take to his treatment at the hands of Pope Stephen VI? Read on:
This was all too much for the people, already sick of the intrigues of the Church. They demanded Stephen VI be removed and a proper pope be instated. Stephen VI was thrown in jail and later strangled in August 897.
That was then — and so we move forward in time, to the infamous “Lollard” precedent, of John Wycliffe:John Wycliffe was the most famous priest of his day. His learning was immense. He had been a leading scholar at Oxford and a chaplain to the King of England. More to the point, he spoke out boldly against the errors of the popes, the organizational hierarchy of the Roman Church, and the corruption of the clergy in his day. . . .
If the people in England were to know the truth, Wycliffe reasoned that they must have the Word of God in their own language. Under his direction, the Bible was translated into English for the first time, although the job was not completed by his associates until 1395, eleven years after his death. . . .
John Wycliffe died of his stroke on the last day of the year [1384]. The religious authorities had never excommunicated him because they feared public opinion–the people loved John and his fame was international. So he was buried in consecrated soil. But about thirty years later, the Council of Constance revenged itself on his criticism by condemning his teachings and ordering his bones to be dug up and burned.
But the burning of such a man’s bones could not end his influence. As John Foxe said in his book of martyrs, “though they dug up his body, burnt his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn; which yet to this day…doth remain.”
So, once again, we do not have a favorable precedent. Fast forward to the case of Oliver Cromwell, in 1661:
Following [King Charles I]’s execution in 1649, the Commonwealth of England was introduced to replace the monarchy, and [Oliver] Cromwell became Lord Protector, a role in which he remained until his death five years later. Cromwell was succeeded by his son as Lord Protector, but he did not last long, and was overthrown by the army a year later.
The monarchy was restored [in 1660] and Charles II became the new king. Immediately after gaining power, King Charles II ordered the arrest and trial of all who played part in the overthrowing of the monarchy. Of the 59 who signed the death warrant, several were hanged while others were imprisoned for life. Even those who had died were not spared. Several had their body exhumed and reburied in communal burial pits, but Oliver Cromwell and three others—John Bradshaw, the judge who was president of the court, Henry Ireton, a general in the Parliamentary army and Cromwell’s son-in-law, and Robert Blake, a military commander—were awarded death sentences.
Cromwell’s body was to have a special fate, illustrated in part below:
On the [twelfth] anniversary of King Charles I’s death, Cromwell’s body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and his disinterred body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. In the afternoon, the body was taken down and beheaded. Cromwell’s head was then placed on a 20-foot-tall wooden spike and raised above Westminster Hall where it remained for nearly twenty five years. For the next two centuries, the dismembered head rolled through the possession of many until it was given a dignified burial in a secret place at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in 1960.
The posthumous punishment of Oliver Cromwell thus extended for almost three hundred years.
Surely the House Democrats, and the members of the Senate, ought to have these (and other — see the case of Gilles van Ledenberg at the previous link) precedents well in mind as they deliberate the solitary ex post facto bill brought against former President Trump. For there was, and is, no single example that your exacting Curmudgeon could exhume (pardon the expression) from the dustheap of history that resulted in a positive public regard for any judges (or executioners) who presumed to proceed in their cases after the fact.
Now, granted — Donald John Trump is still very much among the living, and nothing the current Congress may do can alter that, despite the extraordinary powers to which it may try to lay claim. But its very attempt to assert such powers ex post facto brings discredit upon those who are so basely motivated.
Ours is a government of laws, not men, despite how glum the present may appear to some. There is not one on the scene thus far, thank God, who proposes to rewrite, or replace, the Constitution. Its prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, both as to Congress and the several States, remains intact.
That said, nothing ever stopped politicians from making fools of themselves in public: just witness the examples I have adduced above.
May history record their folly in full. And may the rest of us resist to the fullest their contempt for the very words of our Constitution.
In addition to being unconstitutional, the attempt to punish a person no longer in office is a dangerous precedent. Like ending the judicial filibuster, the party currently in power might regret doing this, and perhaps sooner than they expect.
Being a Leftist, Socialist, Communist with good intentions means never having to say you are sorry for anything.
The swamp is still in need of a good draining.
Surely the purpose of impeachment is to remove from office for treason and undefined “high crimes and misdemeanours”. It is a political process, and does not preclude action in the courts. If Trump is to face charges, he should be tried in the legal system, shouldn’t he?
One would think so. However, his Jan. 6 speech doesn’t come even close to meeting the legal definition of “incitement.”
If they accuse him of incitement and that’s their evidence then the courts should decide. Watching CNN it seems that questioning the fairness or constitutionality of the election is “incitement”. It seems there is a general unwillingness to have the election process investigated.
Politics aside, it brings me great amusement to see a reference to the story of Pope Formosus here. Funniest story in church history, in my opinion.
Not being from ‘over there’, this story really is puzzling!
I thoroughly enjoy Mr. Haley’s contributions here and on Unscripted, and he makes an excellent point, but… there are a few questions, to which I’d like to find answers:
Firstly, what’s the agenda here in embarking on a procedure so obviously incorrect? Is the intent to set a precedent that Congress can bypass scrutiny and the rule of law, should it so choose? I’m thinking specifically of the US Supreme Court, which, one might expect, would be standing ready to declare this either unconstitutional or at least Very Silly.
Secondly, I assume the crime of sedition is still a valid law in the USA. If so, Trump’s twitter statements and speeches leading up to the fracas on Jan 6th might be deemed seditious.
That might be tested, fairly readily, in court. The evidence is in the public domain, there must be witnesses to conversations in the White House around that time, who could testify as to their perception of the President’s mindset and intent (for some of the above). A verdict would, presumably, either exonerate or jail Trump. Can a serious criminal record disqualify a person from federal or other public office? If so, why risk having the whole ‘impeachment’ thrown out as abuse of process?
And finally, this third issue, too, for which I don’t expect Mr. H. to practice thought-transfer from Democratic leaders, but any observations would be welcome:
Given they might simply demonstrate better governance than Trump’s administration, and they have four years in which to prove to the American people that they are better*, and that this has the potential to backfire spectacularly ahould the case be thrown out or Trump acquitted, and that the new administration’s activity ought to drown-out any noise emanating from the Trump wagon-circle, it all seems like a huge mis-step by the Democratic party leadership, especially so when they might just be ‘getting-on with it’.
Hoping some learned Americans, ideally Mr. Haley, can shed light on the above.
*I mean in the secular public perception, not the Christian sense of morally right or wrong behaviour/policies.
I am not Mr. Haley, obviously.
(1) Most observers think Democrats are doing this in the hope that if the Senate convicts Mr. Trump, they can then disqualify him from being president again. Since they are highly unlikely to get a conviction, which requires a two-thirds majority, this looks, to the opposition, like a spiteful attempt to further muddy Trump’s reputation in the hopes that he can be definitively discredited.
(2) In our early history as a nation, one party passed an Alien and Sedition Act which identified criticism of the government as “sedition.” The Act was repealed. We supposedly have free speech here. Democrats loudly claimed that the 2016 election results were invalid, including objecting to Electoral College vote counts when Congress convened in 2017. Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 comes nowhere near any legal standard for “sedition” or “treason,” nor do the actions of Representatives and Senators who objected to the election counts.
(3) So far, Biden-Harris show no sign of governing “better,” certainly not in the eyes of the opposition, which is about half the country. They claimed to have a plan to defeat the Wuhan virus, but have admitted they have no such plan. In my opinion, Biden-Harris policies and partisan laws Congress may pass will be devastating to the economy and to our liberties.
Since you are “over there,” I am guessing that your sources of information lean heavily on the establishment American media, which are partisan Democrat outlets and have been for some years. In my opinion (which is shared by many Americans) we have not had any objective news sources in a long time. I try to find confirming information even when I read reports in conservative media which favor my viewpoint. When assessing reports in the left-wing media, my default position is that anything reported must be confirmed independently.
Thanks for that.
If I recollect, there was a “test” for free speech, in a Supreme Court opinion, along the lines of it not giving the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre, so I had assumed there were bounds, even in America. Conversely, I am also aware that Ms. Harris seemed to like rioting earlier in 2020, or at least think it was justifiable.
I followed Mr. Haley’s argument completely regarding the constitutionality (or otherwise) of some of the election administration issues in various places. It never occurred to me to lump those objections in with Trump’s silly behaviour. There’s a big difference between raising valid objections and raising a rabble.
I also don’t expect for a moment that Biden-Harris will govern better, but dropping the “impeachment” and just getting on with it might have been seen as states(person) like and conciliatory, costing them little politically but helping to persuade Trump voters they weren’t as evil as portrayed. My point was that pursuing Trump “post mortem” is probably a political mistake — it wasn’t just Democrats he was upsetting at the start of January but he alienated a sizeable group of his own supporters.
I wholly agree about the difficulties of media partiality. Over here organisations such as the BBC long ago ceased to make any real attempt to be fair and balanced. And in any case, criticism of Trump should not indicate support for anything Democrat-ish.
So watching from the sidelines (albeit with more than casual interest), it’s depressing that a nation the size of the USA can’t produce better people than Trump and Biden (and Harris) to run it. Oddly, VP Pence rose in my estimation after watching events unfold on C-SPAN, but that’s an entirely different discussion.
There are bounds for free speech, as in “shouting fire.” However, there was nothing in the Jan. 6 speech which came even close to calling for an assault on the Capitol. He expressed his belief that the Biden election was obtained by fraud. Despite the American media complex, BBC, etc., this is by no means “disproved,” nor is saying so “sedition.”
The objections to the vote in Congress are being lumped in with Trump’s behavior, by the Democrats leading Congress.
I agree with you that dropping the impeachment and getting on with governing would be the better thing for Democrats to do. They show no signs of doing it, unfortunately.
Why wasn’t Nixon impeached after his resignation?