Impeachment means Trump can be disqualified from election in 2020 by a simple majority Senate vote.

[FreepFryer]

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 09:11 PM - Edit history (3)

Update - looks like I got the interpretation wrong! It’d require the two-thirds conviction vote first.

Thanks starfishsaver for the reasoned dialogue.

Before you discount impeachment as impossible, doomed and/or meaningless...take time to learn what impeachment means.

For example, did you know that removal is NOT the only possible outcome in the Senate of an impeachment referral from the House? Did you know that even if a 2/3 majority vote to remove an impeached president is unsuccessful, he or she can be disqualified from ever holding office again by simple majority vote?

Disqualification is another formal vote that can take place in the Senate at the conclusion of impeachment proceedings - it's a real thing.

During an impeachment trial, the Senate can "disqualify" an officeholder from holding any public office again, but that is a separate vote from their "removal". As part of formal impeachment proceedings the Senate has the power to vote separately on removal (by supermajority) and/or disqualification (by simple majority), but the one does not imply the other.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

- Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Senate Overview of Impeachment Process:

- The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf

In the case of a Trump impeachment proceeding during the current presidential term of office, a 'disqualification' vote (different and apart from 'removal') would prevent Trump from running again, AND prevent Pence from taking Trump's place (unlike removal). However, it would mean Trump lasting out his term.

Just one example, but it helps to know what words mean before denying or diminishing the powers they represent - don't you agree?

Many thanks to TwilightZone for the great feedback and suggestion to create this post!

[LEW]

1. truly interesting

Again another reason to start impeachment...I truly believe many things will happen with the start of impeachment. For one, wouldn't Mueller have to testify?

[emmaverybo]

2. I don't believe we do. It's more a matter of timing. But thank you for new info.

[FreepFryer]

3. You're welcome! I'm relieved to hear you don't see a similar volume of blanket dismissals...

...unfortunately I see a lot of it here, from some rather prominent posters.

Posts like "There's no way the GOP will vote to impeach" or "Democrats could never impeach Trump in the current Senate" or "There's no way in Hell," etc., based in a superficial understanding of the process and an unfounded overconfidence in the extent of their own knowledge.

More than anything else, I hope we won't see much more of it, before we start seeing less.

Cheers to you!

[emmaverybo]

9. Same!

[UniteFightBack]

4. Also if the evidence can get out there the pukes can't pretend that crimes were not committed. nt

[FreepFryer]

5. True that! (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

6. Here are some citations to back up my OP. Feel free to provide dissenting sources, lets discuss!

Senate Overview (link in OP)

When the presentation of evidence and argument by the managers and counsel forthe respondent has concluded, the Senate as a whole meets in closed session to deliberate.Voting on whether to convict on the articles of impeachment commences upon return to open session, with yeas and nays being tallied as to each article separately.35

A conviction on an article of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of those Senators present. If the respondent is convicted on one or more of the articles against him or her, the Presiding Officer will pronounce the judgment of conviction and removal. No formal vote is required for removal, as it is a necessary effect of the conviction.

The Senate need not vote on all of the articles before it. Where an individual has already been convicted on one or more of the articles, the Senate may decide that subsequent votes on the remaining articles are unnecessary.

Conversely, when the Senate did not convict President Andrew Johnson in the votes on three of the articles of impeachment against him, the Senate did not vote on the remaining articles.

The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States.36 If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.37

CRS-636 III Hind’s § 2397; VI Cannon’s § 512.37 VI Cannon’s § 512.

[FreepFryer]

7. Here's US Law Justia making the same argument.

The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote.

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856


853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.

854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.

855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

[Andy823]

8. Just a couple of questions

You wrote this:

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856

So could the senate, run by republicans, change the requirement from a simple majority to the two thirds requirement? Republicans have made a lot of changes when it helps them get their way.

And second if it were a simple majority, then that would mean we need 7 republicans to vote for the disqualification. Who would those 7 be? Even down the road, months from now, I still can't see 7 of them Turing on trump, unless something really, really big came out about him.

Just curious.

[davekriss]

10. 4 votes, no?

There are 47 democratic and independent senators. So we'd need 4 to get to 51. Unless there are 3 Democratic senators who've already said they would not vote to convict?

[FreepFryer]

12. This (nt)

[FreepFryer]

11. I didn't write that, it's from US Law Justia., but here's my take on your q's

1. Precedent (Archbald) in the Senate, recited in the second case (Ritter), would argue against it but McConnell is a dastardly destructive and precedent overturn8ng bastard indeed.

2. The U.S. Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats (including two independents). That means we would need 4 Republicans to vote fora successful Trump disqualification.

[Andy823]

13. OK my bad

So can you name 4 republicans that would vote for it?

[FreepFryer]

15. Lol. I'm a FreepFryer, not a soothsayer. Whatever the spread, buckle up for a wild ride! (n/t)

[malaise]

14. Romney is counting on this

What an opportunist

[FreepFryer]

16. Wow that's an interesting comment! I hadn't even applied it to Mitt's posture. Thanks! (nt)

[malaise]

18. Someone should ask him how he'd vote

[gldstwmn]

25. He said he disagrees with Amash so I'm guessing that's a no.

[Vidal]

17. VERY interesting

thank you

[StarfishSaver]

19. I don't think this is correct, although I'll have to do some research to be sure

I'm not saying it's definitely wrong - I don't know without looking into it further.

My initial read of this is that conviction by 2/3 vote is the prerequisite for either removal or disqualification and that the Senate's only options after conviction are to remove the president from office and/or disqualify him from holding office in the future - they can do either or both.

However your interpretation would mean that, for example, in 1995, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives could have impeached Bill Clinton by a one-vote margin and then the Republican controlled Senate could have voted by simple majority to disqualify Bill Clinton from running for reelection the following year.

My initial read of this is that conviction by 2/3 vote is the prerequisite for either removal or disqualification and that the Senate's only option conviction is removal from office and disqualification. Removal is mandatory if the Senate convicts.

It just doesn't make sense to me that it would work the way you suggest. But I'll do my research and let you know what I find.

This is really interesting. Thanks for raising it!

[FreepFryer]

22. Did you read the Senate Overview (6) and Us Law Justia articles (7), citing Archbald and Ritter?

Senate precedent re disqualification of Archbald on a simple majority vote without conviction and removal seems quite clear, to me anyway. While the Justia article states an argument can be made for the reverse, it clearly states the Senate decided that disqualification need not result from a conviction as does removal.

[StarfishSaver]

28. Yes, I did

They don't contradict what I'm saying. They don't say that disqualification is permitted without a conviction.

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

they're not arguing that a conviction is not required for disqualification. They're simply saying that, unlike conviction and removal, a 2/3 vote is not required for disqualification.

Also, in the cases cited in your source, the judge was convicted and removed before the vote was taken to disqualify him.

The constitutional language is very clear including the reference to the vote for disqualification being taken "subsequently." The only thing it could be subsequent to is a vote to convict and remove.

[FreepFryer]

31. Yes you are right! I found very simple language stating such.

For example:

Unlike impeachment by the House, however, conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote on any article of impeachment. The Senate may only impose a judgment of removal from office or removal and disqualification from holding "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

It doesn’t say disqualification separately. Thanks StarfishSaver!

[StarfishSaver]

34. Exactly!

Thanks for raising this really interesting issue. I learned something!

[FreepFryer]

37. No worries and I have no problem w a heap of shit being tossed on my head -

That’s what earnest learning requires. Bring it... I came for the long game

Thanks Starfish.

[GulfCoast66]

20. Respectfully, that is incorrect.

Impeachment is a constitutional act and the constitution reigns supreme. Acts of congress mean nothing.

I Just re-read the constitution. Two-thirds to impeach or nothing.

[FreepFryer]

21. Respectfully, you're completely wrong. Please cite your argument as I have (twice).

[GulfCoast66]

26. You sighted senate overview which is not constitutional.

I sighted the actual document.

If you think the Senate can add caveats to the constitution then that is fine.

But when we deal with constitutional issues, the actual constitution has to be taken at face value.

We disagree. Wish you were correct. But what court is going to allow ‘extra’ rules on the actual constitution? None I know of. Certainly not this Supreme Court.

[FreepFryer]

27. You haven't shown a citation backing your opinion, I've shown two, one from the Senate itself

Respectfully this is more than a matter of opinion. If there is existing argument and case law supporting your opinion, please provide it.

[GulfCoast66]

29. You make my point...

Case law means nothing when dealing with such constitutional issues. And there is no way to produce opposing opinions as the ones you are quoting were never tested. Because we have never convicted a president.

Its pretty clear what the actual document says.

If there is no conviction it is clear it is over. I don’t doubt some judge expressed a different opinion, untested of course.

I am sure nothing I can say will change your mind. Nor people way smarter than me.

But never forget disagreement on DU does not make us enemies. We just disagree.

[FreepFryer]

42. I do appreciate the collegiality - and you were on the right side of this one. this time! :)

Although I didn’t see it as a matter of constitutional interpretation as much as institutional practice, it’s a matter of practical law (you oughtnt be able impose a penalty for a violation without an essential conviction)

[GulfCoast66]

44. To this mid level manager...

Applying a penalty with no conviction goes against our entire system.

Not that I don’t want trump penalized in every way possible!

Thanks for the discussion. Have a nice evening.

[StarfishSaver]

23. I don't think this works

If you look at the plain language of the clauses you referenced, you will see that the Constitution requires conviction by 2/3 of the Senate in order to impose the penalties. It also states that removal from office is automatic upon conviction. Disqualification from holding appointed federal office in the future isn't mandatory but can be imposed subsequent conviction and removal by a simple majority vote. But it cannot be imposed absent a conviction.

[FreepFryer]

24. Thx - Can you cite your last statement? And can you respond to the cited text re Archbald/Ritter?

You are interpreting the constitution directly rather than citing existing arguments or cases. I should think that if such an explicit requirement exists, it would be plainly stated and available to cite.

Thanks - here’s the Justia text again:

Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856

853 See discussion supra of the differences between English and American impeachment.

854 3 Deschler’sprecedents Of The United States House Of Representatives ch. 14, § 13.9.

855 See Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional And Historical Analysis 77–79 (2d ed. 2000).

856 The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’sprecedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html

[StarfishSaver]

30. I don't have a cite at my fingertips at the moment

However, I'm a constitutional lawyer and law professor trained to interpret the Constitution and my reading of it is that it's very clear that disqualification can't operate absent a conviction. You don't know me from Adam, so I don't expect you to consider me a source, but I'm very confident in my reading of this.

Any other DU lawyers want to weigh in with their opinion on this?

[FreepFryer]

33. You are right, as I mentioned above a moment ago.

Lots of t3xt makes the relationship between removal and disqualification clear:

Unlike impeachment by the House, however, conviction by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote on any article of impeachment. The Senate may only impose a judgment of removal from office or removal and disqualification from holding "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

I’m inclined to believe you are correct.

[cynatnite]

32. Hold the phone...

The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required.

Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, but this tells me that the official has to be impeached first, then get disqualified.

Still gotta get over that impeachment hurdle first.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so someone will have to tell me if I'm wrong in my understanding.

[FreepFryer]

35. Yes indeed. options r removal or removal and disqualification, not disqualification without removal.

Gotta have a conviction first, it would appear.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Which makes sense

Otherwise a president could be disqualified from running for reelection based solely on simple majority votes in the House and Senate.

[FreepFryer]

40. Impeachment would happen at most inaugurations and we'd have only one-term presidents

Hmmmm

[StarfishSaver]

41. LOL - so true!

[boston bean]

43. I don't know shite about this. But isn't impeachment separate from conviction?

[cynatnite]

45. They'd have to vote to impeach and then again to convict. n/t

[FreepFryer]

46. Yup! Vote to impeach by the House, vote to convict in Senate. Disqualification vote there possible,

But not necessarily. If so, requires simple majority.

Conviction results in removal from office. Disqualification prevents re-election to any office.

[unblock]

36. Sorry, but the legal term for this is "obvious drafting error"

It just doesn't make sense to impose penalties after a trial and acquittal.

If this is what the senate rules and constitution intended, they would have made it more clear.

No way this would ever hold up.

[FreepFryer]

38. I don't know about the question of the framers intent etc etc but yeah

I can’t see the legality of imposing penalty without conviction, even though it is a logical but erroneous interpretation of the cited sources.

[FreepFryer]

47. From senate . Gov - freepfryer is no constitutional law genius.

Should stick to stirfry.


The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office. In some cases, disqualification from holding future offices is also imposed. There is no appeal.

Senate.gov

[unblock]

48. Here's a more clear explanation/source and sorry, the o.p. is wrong:

Sec. 10 . Voting and Judgment

Under the Constitution, a two-thirds vote of Senators present is
required to convict an accused on an article of impeachment. The
articles are voted on separately under the Senate rules. U.S. Const.
art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 6; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 13. The yeas and nays are
taken on each article. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2098, 2339. In some
instances, the Senate has adopted an order to provide a method of
voting and putting the question separately and successively on each
article. 6 Cannon Sec. 524; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 13.2.
The Constitution provides for removal from office on conviction
and also allows the further judgment of disqualification from holding
further office. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 7. No vote is required
on removal following conviction, since removal follows automatically
from conviction under this constitutional provision. Deschler Ch 14
Sec. 13.9. However, the further judgment of disqualification from
holding future office requires a majority vote. Deschler Ch 14
Sec. 13.10. The Senate has held that a question on removal and
disqualification is divisible. 3 Hinds Sec. 2397; 6 Cannon Sec. 512.
The impeachment and removal from office of a Federal District
Judge did not necessarily disqualify him from holding office as a
Member of the House, absent any specific action taken by the Senate to
disqualify him from future Federal office. Waggoner v. Hastings, 816
F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Fla. 1993).

(Emphasis mine)

[House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]
[Chapter 27. Impeachment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-115-28.htm


I believe the source you found was a summary from this source and their simplification inadvertently introduced the ambiguity you picked up on.

[FreepFryer]

49. This is really helpful. Thank you! I've been disavowed of this notion a few different ways now,

But your comment is really illustrative. Thanks unblock, im grateful for your thoughtfulness.