 |
| Michael Horowitz time.com |
It is Wednesday and time for the Blogger Candidate Forum. It has been a very busy few days in Washington D.C. House of Representatives Democrats have introduced two articles of impeachment: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Michael Horowitz, the Department of Justice Inspector General tasked with investigating political bias by the FBI when it looked into allegations of Trump ties to Russia during the 2016 elections. The report found that agents were sloppy and omitted key facts in obtaining a surveillance warrant but not politically biased. As expected, Mr. Donald Trump was not happy with the results. Obviously he was expecting the IG's report to support a long debunked theory that there was political bias. The Candidate Forum thinks that the president has better things to do than ask DOJ investigators to do than pursue all sorts of wild theories. Onward.
 |
| everycrsreport.com |
Now that the House has decided what to charge the president with and impeachment is an all but foregone conclusion, the question remains what will the Republican-controlled Senate do? The answer seems obvious, they have enough votes to acquit the president but what if there was another, less politically charged way to rebuke the president? What if there was a way that both the House and the Senate could condemn the president's alleged actions without suffering too much electoral fallout? What, you may be wondering, is the way forward without a trial in the Senate? The answer is a presidential censure censure.
What is a presidential censure? A censure is a much stronger resolution of reprimand of a federal elected official, without removing them from office, retain their title, standing, and power to vote (en.m.wikipedia.org; date accessed Dec. 11, 2019). A censure has nothing to do with impeachment and most often used by Congress to discipline members of the House and Senate. In this case, a presidential censure would be tantamount to the Senate offering an opinion about the current Oval Office holder. Senate website explains,
... a formal statement of disapproval... a less severe form of discipline (thehill.com; Dec. 10, 2019; date accessed Dec. 11. 2019).
The most recent use of a censure was this year, when Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced a resolution to censure a Republican member for comments he made about immigrants. Last year, Republican Representative Andy Biggs introduced a censure resolution against a Democrat for conduct that would incite public discord (Ibid). A direct presidential censure is a completely different matter.
| President Andrew Jackson; censured not impeached millercenter.org |
Members of Congress routinely and freely express their opinions about any and every subject, however, when it comes to Congressional resolutions, the options are endless. A resolution van be passed by either chamber at any time. Historically, only president has been directly censured. Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of The United States was censured by a Republican-controlled Senate for assuming power not conferred by the Constitution (Ibid). Three years later, the Democrats took control of the Senate and expunged the censure from the official record (Ibid).
Thomas Jipping report, "According to the Congressional Research Service, the House passed a resolution of reproof against President Buchanan in 1860. Unsuccessful resolutions of censure, reprimand, or denunciation have been introduced against presidents such as John Adams, James Polk, Ulysses Grant, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama" (Ibid). House Judiciary Committee chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a resolution of censure in 2017, in the wake of Charlottesville. Right now, the House is vigorously exercising its duty to investigate and impeach the president; the Senate is planning a quick trial and acquittal but could the House of Representatives and (maybe the) Senate exercise the option to censure?
 |
| Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) govtrack.us |
I think it's certainly appropriate and might be a little more bipartisan, who knows,... Time's slipping by (politico.com; Dec. 10, 2019; date accessed Dec. 11, 2019).
Censure is an alternative narrative to impeachment and could attract Republican support. It would also help Democrats avoid a lengthy Senate trial, which could tilt public opinion against them in the run up to the 2020 election.
Another representative told Politico, Right now, there's no other options. This is another option (Ibid).
The moderates championing the censure option concede that the odds of success are slim. Democrat House leaders feel confident that the two articles of impeachment will have enough support to pass. Also, the censure not impeachment group is far short of the necessary 18 votes required to block impeachment on the floor, and a censure resolution would be a very tough sell at this point. With the exception of Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), who sit in districts won by the president, the Democrats are united under the impeachment banner. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ruled out censure, saying,
I think censure is just a way out. If you want to go, you gotta go,... If the goods are there, you must impeach. Censure is nice but it is not commensurate with the violations of the Constitution should we decide that's the way to go (Ibid; June 19, 2019.
 |
| Moderate House Democrats theatlantic.com |
What genuinely has moderate House Democrats worried is a lengthy Senate trial will result in an even more divisive 2020 campaign. To wit, some of the Democrats have reached out to moderate House Republicans to suss out whether they would be willing to support a censure resolution. Mr. Jipping writes, "...while some Republicans privately acknowledge that censure would be a much tougher vote than impeachment, they doubt they will be confronted with that choice" (politico.com; Dec. 10, 2019). Also, House and Senate Republicans are not actively looking for an escape route, like the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment. In the meantime, Republicans remain solidly--at least outwardly--behind the president, arguing that he did nothing in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
Censure is a very long-shot but it would mean a win for the Democrats and Republicans. A censure would mean both parties would be able to go on record as condemning the president's actions without the pain of a lengthy trial. Further, it would be an official rebuke of the president's attempts to pressure Ukraine into investigating a potential political rival in exchange for an aide package. For Democrats, it would be a more painful win because after the special counsel's report and impeachment inquiries, a censure would seem like taking the chicken exit. This could mean losing the House of Representatives, not flipping the Senate, and four more years of Trump. The pain for the Republicans would be less acute. Republicans who sign on to a censure resolution would be considered disloyal to the president and find themselves out of a job, replaced by Trump partisans. Regardless, a presidential censure should only be considered as an absolute resort.
No comments:
Post a Comment