And now, the next level — some questions and answers.
Why is this “unprecedented”? Congress has never impeached a
sitting Cabinet officer before.
But what about William Belknap in 1876? Good reference (and a recent trivia subject)!
It is true. The House of Representatives moved to impeach then-
Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, charging him with corruption. But he resigned minutes before the House took the impeachment vote. He was firmly out of office when the Senate held its trial. (And acquitted him.) This makes Mayorkas the first Cabinet secretary to be in office for impeachment. And only
the second-ever impeached.
Why is this an “unprecedented question of process”? Glad you caught that. Not only is this the first impeachment of a sitting Cabinet officer, Democrats may make it the first time that senators have dismissed an impeachment out of hand, with no substantial trial arguments.
Some
Senate Republicans and
most all House Republicans are incensed about this idea. They argue that a full trial is a
“constitutional obligation.”
*Can* the Senate dismiss the charges without a full trial? This is somewhat debated, as you see above. But the answer is yes, according to constitutional scholars in both parties and retired Senate staffers I spoke with.
Tell us more. Senate impeachment trials are governed by the
U.S. Constitution, foremost. But it offers little specifics on the process, other than, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”
Other rules for impeachment trials are part of a nine-page section of the Senate manual, helpfully titled, “
Rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials.”
And those rules say nothing about whether the Senate can or cannot move to dismiss a trial.
This is why scholars believe these are powers the Senate retains under the rest of its standing rules and as part of common trial procedure.
So what will the Senate do?
First, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has some decisions to make. He must first decide whether to move to dismiss or table the articles of impeachment.
A motion to dismiss has some disadvantages. For one, it includes time for debate, for up to two hours total. Another disadvantage? It may be a riskier vote for vulnerable Democrats than a motion to table impeachment.
A motion to table, on the other hand, could be seen as a sort of “nuclear option,” precisely because it would block the chance for any real debate or statement.
While the House impeachment vote was a bare majority, it was still the majority decision of the chamber. Many Republicans could find a motion to immediately table this impeachment as a declaration of “procedural war.”
Bottom line: We expect the Senate to begin and end the Mayorkas trial quickly. Such a decision will be met with vocal objections and protestation from conservative Republicans, who may use points of order to slow down the process.
In the end, the Democratic-controlled Senate can quickly dispose of this impeachment. Doing so would set a precedent, which may make their opponents in the Republican Party give more thought to the same idea, should a president in their party be impeached in the future.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Which and what kinds of political stories matter to you? And which ones have become oversaturated? What’s happening in your state, city, town or neighborhood that ought to get more attention?
Email your responses to [email protected].
Your suggestions can help guide our coverage this election year.
Your humbled Here’s the Deal editor also forgot the link to the
large “Biden” head sculpture mentioned in last week’s write-up. Thanks to the readers who flagged this.