Even when the House urges expedition, it usually takes years—not months—to obtain documents or testimony through judicial subpoena enforcement proceedings. It would be unwise, indeed dangerous, to allow Presidents to defy all subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry and then assert that the House cannot impeach without exhausting judicial remedies. Particularly in a case like this one, where the President's misconduct is a constitutional crime in progress, waiting for the courts is the practical equivalent of inaction. This Committee will not stand idly by while the President abuses power by asking and pressuring foreign powers to corrupt the upcoming election.
Impeachment exists "not to inflict personal punishment for past wrongdoing, but rather to protect against future Presidential misconduct that would endanger democracy and the rule of law."[1] By virtue of the conduct encompassed by Article II, President Trump "has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law."[2] That is true in at least three respects: first, he has debased the impeachment remedy; second, he has broadly argued that no government entity in the United States has the legal power to investigate his official misconduct except on terms of his choosing; and third, his obstruction reflects a pattern of misconduct.
The impeachment power exists for a reason. It is the Framers' final and most definitive answer to a fundamental question: "Shall any man be above Justice?"[3] Urging the necessity of allowing impeachments, Elbridge T. Gerry thus emphasized: "A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them."[4] In Federalist Papers No. 69, Alexander Hamilton affirmed that the Impeachment Clause separates Presidents from kings and khans.[5] Where a President abuses his power, betrays the public through foreign entanglements, or corrupts his office or elections, impeachment is our Nation's last line of defense against conduct "fatal to the Republic."[6] It was partly by virtue of this limit on malfeasance that the Framers entrusted Presidents with sweeping executive authority. A President who seeks to sabotage the impeachment power thus disorders our system of checks and balances, tilting it toward executive tyranny.
That is what President Trump did here. The point bears repetition: his conduct is unlike anything this Nation has ever seen. Other Presidents have disapproved of impeachments. Other Presidents have criticized the House and doubted its motives. Other Presidents have insisted they did nothing wrong.
- ↑ Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment (2019) at 10.
- ↑ H. Res. 755, 116th Cong. Art. II. (2019).
- ↑ 2 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention at 65 (George Mason).
- ↑ Id. at 66 (Elbridge Gerry).
- ↑ The Federalist No. 69 at 444-45 (Alexander Hamilton) (Benjamin Fletcher Wright ed. 1961).
- ↑ 2 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention at 66 (James Madison).
164
