The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Impeachment Resolution

In my Article on “Impeachment”, I noted that the following must be observed by the House of Representatives in any impeachment inquiry, or in the Senate trial of impeachment.

• The Constitution of the United States says that the “House of Representatives” (plural) shall have the sole power of impeachment, therefore, the entire House of Representatives, not any individual or groups of individuals within the House of Representatives, must initiate an impeachment inquiry. And only the full Senate should conduct an impeachment trial.
• An impeachment raises serious concerns of the integrity of our Republic, the impartiality of all those involved in the impeachment process, and the sanctity of a Presidential Election in the impeachment of the President or Vice President. Therefore, all impeachment activities in the House of Representatives, and the Senate trial of impeachment must occur in public to assure the public of the appropriateness and justice of the impeachment process.
• The issues and concerns of the concepts of The Rule of Law, Equality Under the Law, Equal Protection of the Law, and Due Process for the accused must be addressed by any impeachment inquiry that is initiated by the full House of Representatives, and during the process of a Senate trial of impeachment.
• The precedents of the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon and President William J. Clinton should be followed in all Presidential and Vice-Presidential impeachments to ensure that the above doctrines are preserved, and any modifications to these precedents must also assure that these doctrines are preserved. The precedent of the Senate trial of President William J. Clinton should also be followed so that these doctrines regarding the President and Vice President are preserved.

If you compare the “House Impeachment Resolution of 10-29-2019” to the above standards, then it self-evidently does not protect the rights of the President or the Republicans. Page 614 of the 2017 manual on the “Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House” – written by the three individuals who have been the parliamentarians of the House of Representative since 1994 – states that under “the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee investigation of charges against the [federal] officer in question.” Until, and at such time, as they can specify impeachable charges to be investigated, and the Due Process rules under which the impeachment process is to proceed, the Impeachment Resolution is inappropriate.

And the Impeachment Resolution has no focus on specific impeachable actions of President Trump, but instead seem to be searching for a reason to impeach President Trump. As such they are on a “fishing expeditions”, and fishing expeditions are antithetical to American jurisprudence. Nor is it assigned to a committee., as these inquiries are spread out amongst six different committees of the House. As these inquiries can occur simultaneously, it is not possible for the President or the Republicans to coordinate their responses in a unified nor a timely manner. This in no way protects the rights of the President or the Republicans but instead dilutes their rights.

While the House Resolution gives the President and Republicans an illusion of Due Process, it appears that Democrat’s definition of Due Process is for the Republicans to be able to request Due Process, which can be denied by the Committee Chairman or a full Committee vote which is controlled by the Democrats. The Democrat Chairman also has the right to issue subpoenas without the joint concurrence of the Republicans, to restrict the subpoena power of the Republicans, and to limit questions to the witnesses. It, therefore, limits Due Process to the arbitrariness of the Democrat committee chairman or the Democrat majority in the committee. It also does not allow the president's lawyers to participate in the Intel Committee inquiry, so, therefore, the president is denied the right to counsel.

It also allows the previous testimony, which had no protections of President or the Republicans' rights, to remain a part of the inquiry. As the previous testimony did not have the above protections this testimony must be considered as “fruits of the poisonous tree”. The fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. In our legal system the fruits of the poisonous tree are not to be considered, as they will poison the entire process. Indeed, they are often sealed and perhaps destroyed, to assure they do not poison the judicial process.

This Impeachment Resolution, in effect, means that the House Democrats are reserving the right to do whatever they please, howsoever they please, and whenever they please. Without the constraints of The Rule of Law, Equality Under the Law, Equal Protection of the Law, and Due Process there can be no Justice. This is not an “Impeachment” process, but a “Resistance” process, and it is patently a political resolution and not an impeachment resolution.

As this resolution deprives the basic rights of President Trump and the Republicans, they are, and they can at their will, effectively depriving the rights of any and all Americans, as they are acting in a fashion antithetical to our principles and doctrines as to the rights of all Americans. As such, this is an assault to the rights of all Americans. Therefore, the House Impeachment Resolution of President Trump, as currently put forward by the House of Representatives, is not to institute an Impeachment Inquiry, but to authorize a process that is being run as a “Kangaroo Court” (see note). Therefore, it is not a constructive resolution, but a destructive resolution, to our society.

I am reminded of the famous play “Inherit the Wind”, that deals with the prosecution of a teacher for violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public classroom. Defense attorney Drummond turns and points at first to Prosecutor Brady, then to various members of the audience and the Judge, and in righteous anger says:

“I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish!
And I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches! Its upholders as well as its defilers!”

The current Impeachment Resolution is like a wicked law, and it shall destroy everything it touches. As such, any actions that The House of Representatives may take regarding impeachment that do not satisfy the points as stated at the beginning of the article are inappropriate, and perhaps wicked.

* * * * *

This country was founded upon the ideals of The Declaration of Independence, as instituted by The Constitution of the United States, and upheld by the rulings of the Supreme Court. The current Impeachment Resolution of The House of Representatives is antithetical to these ideals, institutes, and rulings, and they should be considered unjust and illegitimate, thus null and void, and should not be considered by the United States Senate.

The Senate and the American people must stand up for the rights of all Americans, including President Trump, for freedom and Liberty to prevail in America. They, therefore, must oppose this Impeachment Resolution of The House of Representatives until such time as the rights of President Trump and the Republicans are protected.

* * * * *

Note - A Kangaroo Court is:

“a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and in some cases, proper defence and the right of appeal.

Prejudicial bias of the decision-maker or from political decree are among the most publicized causes of kangaroo courts. Such proceedings are often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict was already decided before the trial actually began.

A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").”
- from the Wikipedia Article on “Kangaroo Court”