CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS
Some and Nunn
by
M.E. Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”
Last week Miss Constitution ended her column by citing Judge John J. Sirica, of Watergate fame, who wrote in his Opinion that there should be a presumption in favor of the President where facts are unclear. The facts were not unclear in the Watergate scandal and President Nixon resigned when the bipartisan support for his leaving office was overwhelming. This week Miss Constitution listened to an interview with Sam Nunn, a former Democratic Senator from Georgia, and well-respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Senator Nunn said that the phone call made by President Trump to President Zelensky of Ukraine amounts to prima facie evidence of an impeachable offense. He did not specify what that offense or crime is. “Prima facia” evidence is defined as “presumed true unless disproved by evidence to the contrary.”
Sam Nunn may be taken seriously. He has served as Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and is considered an expert on national security and foreign policy. Among other things he is an Eagle Scout and Coast Guard veteran. He is a highly respected public servant. I want to remind everyone that elected public servants are just like the rest of us. They are flawed human beings, make mistakes, and only a few of them rise to a high level of respectability with statesperson-like qualities. We are a lucky nation when we have a handful of such persons. You, the Sovereign, decide just who the higher quality ones are through your votes, although sometimes you are choosing between two persons of less quality than you had hoped for.
In any case, Judge Sirica and Senator Nunn put two premises on the table that Miss Constitution thinks are constructive for the discussion we are now having. How should the Sovereign weigh their opposing views? Miss Constitution thinks two pertinent questions are raised.
- Does the Sovereign (that’s YOU) feel that the contents of the released transcript of the telephone call in question establish indisputable facts that rise to Abuse of Power by the President of the United States, and if “yes”, is it a serious enough instance of Abuse of Power that warrants Impeachment and removal?
- If the Sovereign (that’s YOU) thinks that there is any fact or set of facts that would add context or disprove Senator Nunn’s assertion of a prima facie Abuse of Power by the President of the United States, should the President get the benefit of the doubt or presumption as Judge Sirica calls it, and if the answer is “no” is it still a serious enough Abuse of Power to warrant Impeachment and removal immediately or should the matter be left to the Sovereign to decide in November of 2020?
There are gradations of Abuse of Power, even if Abuse is established. If all such gradations resulted in Impeachment and removal Miss Constitution cannot be sure of how many former Presidents would be left to count. Let’s look at the Articles of Impeachment that are to be voted on by the whole House of Representatives this week. They are:
- Abuse of Power
- Obstruction of Congress
One, Obstruction of Congress can be eliminated, as obstruction of the legislative branch by either the executive or judicial branch is part of the system the Founders had in mind. Each of the three co-equal federal branches stretches its power and prerogatives to the limit at various times and when that limit touches one or the other two branches the Supreme Court decides where the line is. In fact, it has agreed to hear three cases on that very issue this Spring. So, Article II of the Impeachment articles is really left to the Court to decide and not the Congress.
That leaves us with a decision, as Sovereign, on Abuse of Power. Many of my past columns have addressed the predicate for Impeachment of a President so I will not repeat that predicate. Good people like Senator Nunn interpret the actual phone call differently from others so I will not impugn good faith differences in interpretation and opinion. However, one of the chief accusers of the President has stated that he does not even think President Trump is the President. He stated that he cheated to win the first time and will cheat to win again. If President Trump cheated to win then he did not really win. Others have called for the President’s impeachment before he even took office, so those persons are really calling for negating the 2016 Presidential election completely and simply removing President Trump and Vice-President Pence. One member of the House thinks the President should continue to be Impeached even if acquitted. These opinions do not meet the good faith test.
A course of action for the Sovereign to consider is simply letting the 2020 election make the decision about any HIGH wrongdoing. We could use information from the Horowitz report and the report due out next Spring by John Durham on interference by several countries in the 2016 election and possible help with that interference by some agencies of the executive branch of the federal government. These reports will add some context as to whether or not there were extenuating circumstances for that part of the telephone call in question that included asking the President of Ukraine to investigate then Vice-President Biden and his son in connection with the corrupt energy company upon whose Board the son sat and any policy decisions of the Obama administration that related to that particular firm. We need to know if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election of an American President and if they did, why? The voters can then decide.
Miss Constitution feels that Some pertinent facts are not yet known, and Nunn should be overlooked before making this very important decision. Miss Constitution thinks the Speaker of the House should pull the Articles of Impeachment for now, and if passed, the Senate should dismiss the only relevant one as having emerged from the House without proper Due Process. The President should be silent. He is President of all the people, even those who have attacked him so fervently.
Copyright©2019 M.E. Boyd, Esq., “Miss Constitution”
Missconstitution.com
