@BrianDeLay If only we could know what the founders thought about this & if they would confirm John Yoo's view. Oh wait, we do! July 20, 1787 they discussed this and EXPLICITLY rejected Yoo's view, including some who once held such an opinion reversing course, see: avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/d…
@BrianDeLay Maybe John Yoo should stick to law and leave history to the historians.
@BrianDeLay In 1787 "Mr. DAVIE. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive."
@BrianDeLay Oh wait, there's more in the historical record, back to 1787 we go...: "Mr. Govr. MORRIS. He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who may be punished. In case he should be re-elected, that will be [FN9] sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to impeach?.."
@BrianDeLay Govr. Morris 1787 cont'd: "...Is the impeachment to suspend his functions. If it is not the mischief will go on. If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach""
@BrianDeLay Overturning Yoo is Madison: "The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."
@BrianDeLay Come on John Yoo. I would have hoped you'd be better than this -- why would you event assert this? Try turning to the primary sources, see full text & much more from the Constitutional Convention debates and Madison's notes July 20, 1787: avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/d…
