CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS

The Constitution’s Sweet Spot (cont)

                          by

M.E, Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”

#twill #tcot #maga #leadright #sbalich #eyesrightopen #Constitution #impeachment #crimes #Russia #deepstate

Miss Constitution was very interested in the statements made in Congressional testimony last week by “expert” witnesses regarding Impeachment of the President. Each witness claims to be a scholar in the field of Constitutional Law. Miss Constitution asked that you compare their statements to hers in previous columns. What? You do not remember her previous columns!

Well, let’s compare now.

  1. Three of the four witnesses concluded that the President should be Impeached for the HIGH crime of political self-serving. In a congratulatory call to the President of Ukraine the President of  the United States asked that the new President investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 Presidential election in the United States including any self-dealing between the then Vice-President and an energy company in Ukraine whose Board of Directors included the Vice-President’s son. Any information was to be delivered to the Attorney General of the United States who is investigating several countries who interfered in our election, including Russia, Italy, and Great Britain. Miss Constitution would ask what injury to the nation or to the Sovereign occurred with this request?
  2. One of the four witnesses stated that the words of our President, “Do us a favor – we’ve been through a lot” should be interpreted as an attempt by our President, and a HIGH crime, to alter his role from Chief Executive to Monarch, as the word “us” really means “me” as does the word “we.” So, the witness said, the President’s words really meant DO ME A FAVOR – I’VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT. Miss Constitution would ask what injury to the nation or to the Sovereign occurred with the words as actually said?
  3. One of the witnesses stated that if the congratulatory call made by the President of the United States to the President of Ukraine does not rise to a HIGH crime then nothing would ever rise to a high crime and our democracy would be lost forever. Miss Constitution would ask whether the phone call made is as HIGH a crime as treason or is treason, is as HIGH a crime as fomenting a military coup or is a military coup, is the equivalent of the HIGH crime of taking a monetary bribe from a foreign state or is a monetary bribe, for the purpose of injuring the nation or transferring Sovereignty to another entity?

What are, then, Constitutional issues that might have been raised at this hearing that could be instructive to a factfinder?  Miss Constitution thinks there are at least three.

  1.  The Sweet Spot where Executive Privilege conflicts with legitimate factfinding
  2. The Sweet Spot where Executive Privilege morphs into Obstruction of Justice
  3. The Sweet Spot where legitimate inquiry becomes Abuse of Power by the House of Representatives

Had the witnesses opined on the above issues the Sovereign might have learned something. The only thing Miss Constitution learned is where not to recommend students go to law school. Only one of the witnesses proposed caution lest any time an opposing party to the President’s wins a majority in the House of Representatives an Impeachment will commence. This is one of the main fears of Alexander Hamilton as stated in Federalist Paper #65. Hamilton was very clear that Impeachment must be rare, bipartisan, and not close to an election. It is Hamilton’s influence, in defending the proposed Constitution in 1787, that a strong executive is essential to a strong country. He was terrified of the type of ugly, unfair, and one-sided process we are going through now.

 While this hearing was going on President Trump was at a NATO meeting in London. There is footage of Canadian and European leaders mocking him while at a cocktail party. Miss Constitution is concerned that an improper Impeachment inquiry might give foreign leaders a type of permission to dismiss the President of the United States and to weaken his influence. This is very dangerous to our country and does rise, in Miss Constitution’s thinking, to a possible HIGH crime by the Speaker of the House and others, as it is an injury to the nation that is very hard to measure but could have deadly consequences. Does a weakened President of the United States create an environment for a strengthened North Korea? A strengthened Iran? A strengthened Russia? A strengthened radical Muslim Jihad?

This was the concern of Alexander Hamilton and other Founders who hoped honorable representatives of the Sovereign would not engage in gross partisanship at the expense of the nation. Note the word HONORABLE. Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, John J. Sirica, in a ruling in 1973 involving the Impeachment of Richard Nixon, said in his ruling, “[There] lies a need to indulge a presumption in favor of the President. To the Court, respect for the President, the Presidency, and the duties of the office, gives the advantage to this policy.”

Copyright©2019M.E. Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”

MissConstitution.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR