For Senate trial, I tentatively think the Chief Justice should preside.
Best reading of Art I S 3 is original+purposive:
It’s not just the direct conflict problem for VP to preside in removal.
Trying presidential conduct is fraught w/ political, partisan & personal conflicts.
Best reading of Art I S 3 is original+purposive:
It’s not just the direct conflict problem for VP to preside in removal.
Trying presidential conduct is fraught w/ political, partisan & personal conflicts.
2/ There is also a textual practical reading for the Chief to preside:
In a normal Senate trial, who would preside during any *disqualification stage* after removal vote?
When the sitting president has already been removed? He/she would be formally no longer the president...
In a normal Senate trial, who would preside during any *disqualification stage* after removal vote?
When the sitting president has already been removed? He/she would be formally no longer the president...
3/ The formalistic textual reading (the Chief presides only for formally sitting presidents) would lead to the strange conclusion that the Chief Justice can never preside over Disqualification, even after presiding after the entire trial up to that point.
There’s formally no VP!
There’s formally no VP!
4/ Maybe a solution in the DQ stage for a just-removed president is the Senate chooses one of its own to preside (officer like Pro Tem).
But that solution creates other problems: A “juror” would also be presiding as judge?
It’s not a criminal trial, but it’s an odd situation.
But that solution creates other problems: A “juror” would also be presiding as judge?
It’s not a criminal trial, but it’s an odd situation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
