Maybe a dumb, but sincere, question.

[Rustynaerduwell]

Is it even constitutional for the Senate to vote on whether an impeachment- or anything for that matter- is constitutional or not?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It's a good question.

Marbury v. Madison held that only the USSC could interpret the Constitution.

[SheltieLover]

2. Interesting point!

Did qpubes insist on this?

[madaboutharry]

3. That is not a dumb question at all.

It is an excellent question.

There is no place in The Constitution where the United States Senate is given the power of determining the constitutionality of anything. That is the exclusive power of the USSC.

I wonder what the Justices thought of this exercise.

[live love laugh]

4. They're arguing to the wrong body. nt

[Generic Brad]

5. It's like the Bible to the GOP

It can be interpreted however they want it to be interpreted, even if there are no relevant passages to base their interpretation on.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Doing what they did

was voted on as part of their "Rules resolution" for proceeding with the trial. As the Constitution notes -

Article I

(snip)

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

For historical purposes, the 4 hours of debate, equally divided, that was set aside, provides their reasoning behind the issue of what they were doing and why (particularly given that it would be the first President who was impeached while in office but who was not tried until after he left office).

In the immediate aftermath of the insurrection, Democrats had originally demanded resignation and when that failed, they attempted to demand use of the 25th Amendment by the VP for "removal", and when that didn't happen, then they went with the impeachment route. If anything, like what happened with Nixon, if 45 had resigned, they probably wouldn't have gone through with the impeachment.