Jonathan Turley, here is your ass on a platter
He had an op-ed in the WSJ that I did not bother to read.
But today there are two letters.. Ari Melber, who was furious that Turely wanted to amend the Constitution, will feel vindicated.
Jonathan Turley should reread his copy of James Madison’s “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787.” In “Adam Schiff’s Capacious Definition of Bribery Was Tried in 1787” (op-ed, Nov. 29), Mr. Turley says that the Framers “rejected” various definitions of impeachable offenses: “‘corruption,’ obtaining office by improper means, betraying one’s trust to a foreign power, ‘negligence,’ ‘perfidy,’ ‘peculation’ and ‘oppression.’”
He is wrong. Those words were raised by various delegates (including Madison) to defend the impeachment power after other delegates made a motion to eliminate impeachment completely. The delegates weren’t debating the specific details of how to define impeachable offenses that day (July 20, 1787). They didn’t even appoint a committee to draft the actual text of the Constitution until the following week.
In fact, the delegates’ defense of impeachment—using the very words that Mr. Turley incorrectly says were “rejected”—was so persuasive that one of the delegates who made the motion to eliminate impeachment, Gouverneur Morris, changed his mind and agreed that impeachment was a “necessity.”
Curiously, Mr. Turley fails to mention the one argument that the delegates did consider and reject that day—that elections would be a sufficient check on the president’s exercise of his powers. After considering the arguments on that point, the states voted 8-2 to allow impeachment rather than relying solely on the electoral process.
If we are going to care about the Framers’ intent (and we should), we have to do it honestly and accurately, without regard to partisan politics. And like Gouverneur Morris, we should be willing to change our opinions when we are wrong. Madison’s “Notes”—the actual notes, not editorialists’ spin on them—are an essential place to start for anyone interested in understanding what the Framers were thinking.
Jeremy Lawrence
Redwood City, Calif.
I served as special impeachment counsel to the House of Representatives for the impeachment and removal of four federal judges, including former judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr.
Prof. Turley implies that his client, Judge Porteous, was exonerated by the Senate because “the lead House manager [Adam Schiff] sought to convict my client on the novel theory that even conduct before taking office could be impeachable.”
To the extent Prof. Turley is implying that the “novel theory” was rejected by the Senate, the exact opposite is true. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 90-6, Porteous was convicted in the Senate of failing to disclose his accepting kickbacks from lawyers and bail bondsmen while he was a state court judge.
The concept of bribery in the Constitution is expansive because an impeachment proceeding is neither criminal nor civil. It is a unique process designed to remove federal officials who have shown themselves unworthy of holding federal public office. It is for that reason that the conduct in question need not be criminal to warrant removal. As Alexander Hamilton put it: “Is it not a method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men?”
Prof. Turley’s reliance on the Warren Hastings impeachment isn’t apt. Impeachment in England was a criminal proceeding dating back to the 14th century. The penalty could involve losing your head. Although the Framers incorporated the language of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”into the Constitution from English practice, the only penalty in this country is loss of one’s federal position and a possible bar from holding future federal office.
Alan I. Baron
Washington
https://www.wsj.com/articles/madison-schiff-bribery-and-impeachment-11575933198 (paid subscription)
= new reply since forum marked as read
