Presidential Impeachment

[DISCLAIMER: I am not associated or affiliated with any political party (I am an American)]

Donald J. Trump will always be remembered as the first President to be impeached twice. Although his last impeachment was only a year ago, there still seems to be a lot of confusion about the process. While it is similar to the legal process of a court trial, it is not the same. To have been impeached means that you have been charged with a crime, but this does not necessarily mean that you have actually committed one. Under U.S. law, you are innocent until proven guilty, and the same holds true for impeachment. Unlike other trials, the U.S. Senate sits as the jury and hears the evidence (if any). In the case of impeaching a sitting President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has the role of the judge in the process. It takes the votes of sixty-seven senators in order to convict someone and remove them from office.

This is spelled out in Article I. Section 3. of the Constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

At the time of this writing, the Articles of Impeachment have been delivered to the Senate. However, unlike the last impeachment and trial, the Articles were passed while Trump was President, but they weren't delivered until after he had left office. Also, unlike the last impeachment trial, the Chief Justice has rightfully declined to sit as the judge since the accused is no longer the President, but a private citizen.

In 1776, British Parliament had the legal authority to try and convict private citizens. This was something that the Founders specifically wanted to prevent and so they limited the ability of Congress to only trying government employees. Private citizens, even former Presidents, are tried in the regular court system, not by Congress.

Article II. Section 4.:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It's fascinating, at least to me, how we now find ourselves trying a private citizen in the Senate. If the Chief Justice has declined to rule, then it must be presumed that Trump is not being impeached as President. If he's not being tried as President, then he is being brought to trial by a Senate that has no authority to try him.

I understand that the political goal is to prevent Trump from ever being elected again. This is the so-called "Dracula Clause" which would prevent him from running for any public office. This would make sense if a sitting President was convicted by the Senate and removed from office, but once the impeached party has already been replaced by the will of the people, I don't see how the Constitution supports that process. Congress should focus on the problems of We the People and let the court systems take care of Trump.

The Senate has scheduled the impeachment trial for the week of February 8th, so we'll eventually see how it all plays out. Regardless of the outcome, this will almost certainly be followed by numerous court challenges which will drag out for months (although it should be noted that Impeachments are final and cannot be appealed). It's like peeling off a band-aid or picking at a scab. We should just rip it off and move on with our lives.

Meanwhile, pass me the popcorn. 😊

 

Ethical Dilemma

A friend of mine is a very successful trial lawyer. Occasionally, we'll meet for lunch and get caught up on things. Yesterday, we began discussing professional ethics and how it related to our different fields. Eventually, we drifted into the nature of ethical dilemmas and I asked her if she had ever been faced with one.

She took a sip of her wine and thought for a moment before speaking. "I think the worst one I ever had was about five years after I went into business with Maynard." She smiled at the memory. "I was doing wills and trusts back then and one of my regular customers, a rich widow, had requested a minor change to her will. This was only a moment's work and, in deference to her history, I only charged her a hundred dollars." She took another sip of her wine. "When she came to pick it up, she fumbled around in her purse and came out with a crisp one hundred dollar bill, folded in half. I took it from her and put it in my pocket as I stood and then escorted her to the front door. When I returned to my office, I removed the bill from my pocket and discovered that there was a second bill stuck to the first. She had accidentally given me two hundred dollars instead of one." She shook her head. "This was the first time that I had found myself in an ethical dilemma. I had to make a choice and I wasn't sure what to do." She paused again for another sip. "Should I say nothing about it and keep the extra hundred for myself? Or should I share it with my partner, Maynard?"

Tweet

January 6, 2021

 

A little over a week ago, a peaceful protest at the Capitol Building crossed over the line and became a non-peaceful riot. Whether or not President Trump** egged them on is secondary to the fact that there are people who do not respect the rule of law. It is this disregard for the Constitution that has brought grievous harm to this country. Whether it be the burning and looting of the Summer of Love or a physical assault on our Congress, lawless activity is un-Constitutional by definition. It is the Law of the Land and all other laws descend from it. If you don't like the laws, pass new ones. If you don't like the Constitution, then change it. It's been amended 27 times already and it can be amended again.

If we don't obey the laws, then we are no longer a Nation of Laws, but a Nation of Outlaws.

Tweet

President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect

[DISCLAIMER: I am not associated or affiliated with any political party (I am an American)]

Yesterday was a day that will live long in infamy. The moment a peaceful protest pushed passed barriers and broke windows of the Capitol Building, it was no longer a peaceful protest. The only fortunate thing that can be said was that there was no burning involved and, several hours later, Congress reconvened and carried out their Constitutional duties.

Up until the final declaration last night, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had been falsely labelled as President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect, respectively. Late last night, however, the final tally of the election of 2020 was recorded and Biden and Harris were officially declared the victors. While there is still no actual Office of the President-Elect, President-Elect Biden and his transition team can finally move forward toward the Inauguration.

If you think that I'm being picky about the phrases, that's okay. I'm being picky because words have meaning and saying that they mean something else is positively Orwellian. Until last night, I wasn't comfortable referring to Joe Biden as President-Elect, because he wasn't any such thing. However, by the laws vested in the Constitution of the United States, he is now President-Elect and, as President, I will support him (and Vice-President Kamala Harris) as all Americans should.

There is no "we" in Left or Right, Democrat or Republican ... it's We the People of America!

Tweet

The Chaos Series

I write about Chaos in my novels and in my non-fictional musings as well. But what do I mean by Chaos? Merriam-Webster has this to say about it:

Definition of chaos

1a: a state of utter confusion

the blackout caused chaos throughout the city

b: a confused mass or mixture

a chaos of television antennas

2a (often capitalized): a state of things in which chance is supreme

especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare COSMOS

b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (such as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)

3 (obsolete): CHASM, ABYSS

In my first novel, The Chaos Machine, the CEO of the fictional Brookstone Heuristics Corporation clarifies my definition:

Hazeltine laughed, "Not exactly. What do you know about Chaos Theory?"

Allen looked bemused, "Which Chaos Theory? Do you mean the pretty little fractals? Or the so-called Butterfly Effect? Or water rolling off the back of Jeff Goldblum's hand?"

"None of the above. I want to hear what you know about Chaos Theory."

Allen replied, "I think that the name itself is a misnomer. In my opinion, what we label as Chaos is actually a very orderly interaction of particles that has progressed throughout the universe since the Big Bang. We can't work with so much detail so we try to analyze and categorize the outcomes with broad strokes." Allen furrowed his brow in thought, "Personally, I think that if you could take a snapshot of every particle in the universe along with its physical and dynamic attributes and store them in a computer, you could then 'roll forward' the interactions of the particles and predict their behavior. In theory, you could predict the future. In practice, no computer is capable of storing or processing so much data as to make this feasible. As a result, in lieu of detail, gross approximations are substituted with the resultant gross outcomes. Our current climate models are a good example of this. It has become a Holy Grail, of sorts."

If such a device could be built, it would be able to predict the future just as surely as these billiards balls follow a future trajectory. And, if you go back in time, the same exact shot will give the same exact result again.

This would suggest that the future is just as immutable as the past. That there is no time travel paradox because neither the future nor the past can be altered. "But!" you say, "I have free will! I may not be able to change the past, but I can choose my future!" We all believe this because to do otherwise would lead to madness. However, it doesn't preclude that it might just be a very convincing illusion. Additionally, nothing prevents an outside force, such as a supernatural entity of some sort, from being able to alter the outcome. A determinant model with a caveat, if you will.

My 13th Presidential Election

[DISCLAIMER: I am not associated or affiliated with any political party (I am an American)]

Here it is, the first day of a New Year! Last night, I mentally reviewed everything that had happened since last January 1st. It was a year unlike any other in my brief sojourn in life on this planet. Primarily, it was the first year that I've spent on Twitter. I've had a private account since March of 2009, but I had never interacted with the rest of the Twitterverse until this past year. It's been an interesting experience, to say the least. Inasmuch as I tried to avoid being sucked into a social media quagmire, I spent a good portion last year Twittering about mostly nonsensical things. It was enjoyable! It was entertaining! It was amazing! It was fun! It also cut into my productivity more than I want to think about 😐

On the bright side, in spite of this soulless black hole of attention sucking, I managed to publish another novel and a humorous short story. As a homebody, the lock-down didn't affect me much, other than I missed having lunch with a couple of friends. Also on the bright side, we had the most fascinating Presidential election in which I have voted. As a former programmer, I am more interested in the process than I am in the outcome. Oh, sure, I voted in 2000 and 2004, where recounts and contested electoral votes were part of the process, but none with the dynamics of the 2020 election. It's like a Super Bowl smeared out over two months with the minute-by-minute plays yelled out by thousands of self-appointed experts. The question is, will the game play out according to the rules? Or will people want to change the rules to alter the outcome?

A process with no rules is not a process at all, but an opinion.

Tweet