Does the Senate have to hold a trial?

[carpro]

It seems to be one of those things that just seem unsaid but obvious in The Constitution. If there was no obligation to try it, the majority leader would hold absolute power.

Yet, the Senate has,, in the past, used committees to gather evidence and question witnesses, rather than holding what we normally would consider a "trial". 2 judges who were impeached appealed their verdicts on those grounds. SCOTUS ruled that the the Senate could conduct "trials" any way they wanted to.

So, no, they are not bound to hold a "trial" in the conventional sense.

 

[HankD]

Can't the Senate say words to the effect - We think this is a nothing burger - and refuse to try it?

 

[InTheLight]

Don't want to get to far off-topic but I find it interesting that the framers of the Constitutions delegated the task of holding a trial with the Senate and not the Supreme Court. That indicates to me that on some level the trial is for political purposes and not strictly for a finding of guilty or innocence.

 

[Revmitchell]

Don't want to get to far off-topic but I find it interesting that the framers of the Constitutions delegated the task of holding a trial with the Senate and not the Supreme Court. That indicates to me that on some level the trial is for political purposes and not strictly for a finding of guilty or innocence.

Well accept that the SC head has to oversee it.

 

[Reynolds]

Don't want to get to far off-topic but I find it interesting that the framers of the Constitutions delegated the task of holding a trial with the Senate and not the Supreme Court. That indicates to me that on some level the trial is for political purposes and not strictly for a finding of guilty or innocence.

Not really. At that time, the court was considered the weakest branch. The founders would not have dreamed the court powerful enough to remove The Executive.

 

[Salty]

When the Senate is presented articles of impeachment by the House, do they have to hold a trial?

Mitch McConnell says yes.

I say no.

So what you are saying - is that if the House passes a bill - the Senate is under no obligation to vote on said bill?

 

[Ziggy]

If the House passes a bill the Senate can entertain a motion to table and let it die without a vote.

 

[carpro]

Well accept that the SC head has to oversee it.

But any ruling of his can be overturned by a majority vote of the Senate.

 

[carpro]

So what you are saying - is that if the House passes a bill - the Senate is under no obligation to vote on said bill?

We already know that is true. They don't even have to bring it to the floor. Said bills can, and frequently are, almost completely ignored.

 

[robycop3]

if an impeachment bill passes the House, the Senate WILL try it, I believe. Finding Trump "not guilty", as is likely, would bring a backlash on the Dems, especially for wasting the taxpayers' money. OTOH, it'd be a bacllash on the GOP if the senate refused to try an impeachment bill against Trump.

 

[carpro]

if an impeachment bill passes the House, the Senate WILL try it, I believe. Finding Trump "not guilty", as is likely, would bring a backlash on the Dems, especially for wasting the taxpayers' money. OTOH, it'd be a bacllash on the GOP if the senate refused to try an impeachment bill against Trump.

The question posed was , Do they have to? And the answer is no.

But like you, I believe they will, but I also believe the "trial" will not resemble what most of us normally consider to be a trial.

 

[carpro]

Don't want to get to far off-topic but I find it interesting that the framers of the Constitutions delegated the task of holding a trial with the Senate and not the Supreme Court. That indicates to me that on some level the trial is for political purposes and not strictly for a finding of guilty or innocence.

What we really have to remember is that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. They make their own rules. Since democrats decided on the day Trump was elected to impeach him, they have been looking for political cover to do so for 3 years. Now they are getting desperate because they don't think they can beat him at the ballot box. So, These hearings are not about proof. If they have the votes , they can impeach him. Period.

The Senate can take a similar approach. Without the votes to convict, this is all political theater, and an attempt by democrats to de-legitimize Trumps presidency and keep him from accomplishing what the American people sent him to Washington to do.

It's contemptible. But that's what is happening.

 

[InTheLight]

What we really have to remember is that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. They make their own rules.

Precisely the point I was trying to make. Since the Senate holds the trial and they vote as a 100 person jury, it's really a political process. I think that was the intention of the founding fathers as well.

 

[InTheLight]

Not really. At that time, the court was considered the weakest branch. The founders would not have dreamed the court powerful enough to remove The Executive.

Possibly. But the House has to first impeach in order for a trial to happen. Therefore, I think the founding fathers meant for the trial to be political, and not strictly a judicial process. Also, it could be a bit what you stated. they didn't want 9 people appointed by some other president to get to make the call.

 

[Reynolds]

Possibly. But the House has to first impeach in order for a trial to happen. Therefore, I think the founding fathers meant for the trial to be political, and not strictly a judicial process. Also, it could be a bit what you stated. they didn't want 9 people appointed by some other president to get to make the call.

I think they viewed the Senate as a Jury of Peers. Chief Justice is judge. Senate is jury. If it were to be political, Senate majority leader would preside.

 

[Salty]

The COTUS says: Article 1 Section 3 (6th para)
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..."


Definition of "Shall" See 3b
shall
verb
\ shəl, ˈshal \
past should\ shəd , ˈshu̇d \; present singular and plural shall
Definition of shall


auxiliary verb

1a—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future we shall have to be ready we shall see
b—used to express simple futurity when shall we expect you
2—used to express determination they shall not pass
3a—used to express a command or exhortation you shall go
b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatoryit shall be unlawful to carry firearms
4archaic

a: will have to : MUST
b: will be able to : CAN

 

[Reynolds]

The COTUS says: Article 1 Section 3 (6th para)
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..."


Definition of "Shall" See 3b
shall
verb
\ shəl, ˈshal \
past should\ shəd , ˈshu̇d \; present singular and plural shall
Definition of shall


auxiliary verb

1a—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future we shall have to be ready we shall see
b—used to express simple futurity when shall we expect you
2—used to express determination they shall not pass
3a—used to express a command or exhortation you shall go
b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatoryit shall be unlawful to carry firearms
4archaic

a: will have to : MUST
b: will be able to : CAN

But...the word "to" is in there.

 

[carpro]

The COTUS says: Article 1 Section 3 (6th para)
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments..."

If they want to.

Just because they have the power doesn't mean they have to use it.

The Constitution contains the same language for the house.

"The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment."

But they don't have to impeach anyone, no matter what crime they commit.

 

[robycop3]

Both House & Senate are gonna do what's politically expedient, just ice be dipped.

Again, I remind everyone about the Clinton impeachment. there was CLEAR EVIDENCE Clinton lied to Congress, but the removal vote wasn't even close ! POLITIX ABOVE JUSTICE !