People keep saying that if the house votes to impeach Donald Trump then 67 votes are needed in the senate to convict him. For example, here's a quote from USA Today:
That is not correct. It does not require at least 67 members to support conviction, and it would be good for people to stop repeating that inaccuracy.
Ah, you may be thinking, but there are 100 senators, and the constitution says it takes a vote of 2/3 of the senators to convict, so that means it takes at least 67 senators. But that's a careless misreading of what the constitution actually says.
The relevant passage is in article I, section 3 of the US constitution. Here it is:
People keep saying we need 2/3 of the votes of the senate membership -- i.e. 67 votes -- to convict Trump. That's not what the constitution says. What the constitution says is that it takes 2/3 of the votes of those present.
If every senator were present, that would be 67 out of 100, but it's a mistake to assume 100 senators will be present. In fact, there almost certainly won't be if the impeachment trial occurs immediately, as at present there are only 99 senators, David Perdue's term having expired and Jon Ossoff not having been confirmed yet. So if all 99 members were present it would take 66 votes to convict.
But there is also no reason to assume all 99 members will be present. Very often the senate convenes and does business with less than all members present, which is why senate rules include a quorum requirement. The constitution addresses this in Article 1, 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." So a senate quorum is 50 at the moment, and will go back up to 51 after we return to having 100 senators.
If fewer than 100 senators are present, then fewer than 67 votes are needed to convict. So instead of focusing on trying to win the votes of the Republicans who are determined not to vote for impeachment, I think it would be smarter for those who'd like to see Trump removed from office to focus on trying to convince as many of those Republican senators as possible to boycott the impeachment trial. We refuse to dignify these proceedings by taking any part in them, Republican senators who want to at least appear to support Donald Trump could say, as a way to try to stay on the good side of the pro-Trumpers while allowing them to avoid actually going on record as voting to acquit him.
There are currently 99 senators, which includes 46 Democrats and 2 Democratic-voting indies. Let's assume all of them show up for the trial and all of them vote to convict, and consider how Republican attendance at the trial would affect things.
(a) If every senator showed up it would require 66 votes to convict, so those working for impeachment would need to get 18 Republican votes. That could be very hard to get.
(b) If 9 senators stayed home, those working for impeachment would need 60 out of 90 votes to convict. That means 12 Republican votes would be needed -- which would also probably be very hard to get...
(c) But suppose 18 Republicans could be persuaded to stand firm in opposition to the impeachment by refusing to attend the impeachment trial. Now there'd be 81 senators present, so it would require only 54 votes to convict. That means if 6 Republicans vote to convict, Donald Trump is convicted and removed from office. And that seems like a number the impeachment side might actually be able to attain.
Quote:
|
A vote on impeaching Trump is expected to take place late Wednesday – and pass – in the Democrat-controlled House... Once it passes, Pelosi would then decide when to take it to the Senate, where at least 67 of the 100 members would have to support conviction. |
That is not correct. It does not require at least 67 members to support conviction, and it would be good for people to stop repeating that inaccuracy.
Ah, you may be thinking, but there are 100 senators, and the constitution says it takes a vote of 2/3 of the senators to convict, so that means it takes at least 67 senators. But that's a careless misreading of what the constitution actually says.
The relevant passage is in article I, section 3 of the US constitution. Here it is:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by US constitution
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
|
People keep saying we need 2/3 of the votes of the senate membership -- i.e. 67 votes -- to convict Trump. That's not what the constitution says. What the constitution says is that it takes 2/3 of the votes of those present.
If every senator were present, that would be 67 out of 100, but it's a mistake to assume 100 senators will be present. In fact, there almost certainly won't be if the impeachment trial occurs immediately, as at present there are only 99 senators, David Perdue's term having expired and Jon Ossoff not having been confirmed yet. So if all 99 members were present it would take 66 votes to convict.
But there is also no reason to assume all 99 members will be present. Very often the senate convenes and does business with less than all members present, which is why senate rules include a quorum requirement. The constitution addresses this in Article 1, 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." So a senate quorum is 50 at the moment, and will go back up to 51 after we return to having 100 senators.
If fewer than 100 senators are present, then fewer than 67 votes are needed to convict. So instead of focusing on trying to win the votes of the Republicans who are determined not to vote for impeachment, I think it would be smarter for those who'd like to see Trump removed from office to focus on trying to convince as many of those Republican senators as possible to boycott the impeachment trial. We refuse to dignify these proceedings by taking any part in them, Republican senators who want to at least appear to support Donald Trump could say, as a way to try to stay on the good side of the pro-Trumpers while allowing them to avoid actually going on record as voting to acquit him.
There are currently 99 senators, which includes 46 Democrats and 2 Democratic-voting indies. Let's assume all of them show up for the trial and all of them vote to convict, and consider how Republican attendance at the trial would affect things.
(a) If every senator showed up it would require 66 votes to convict, so those working for impeachment would need to get 18 Republican votes. That could be very hard to get.
(b) If 9 senators stayed home, those working for impeachment would need 60 out of 90 votes to convict. That means 12 Republican votes would be needed -- which would also probably be very hard to get...
(c) But suppose 18 Republicans could be persuaded to stand firm in opposition to the impeachment by refusing to attend the impeachment trial. Now there'd be 81 senators present, so it would require only 54 votes to convict. That means if 6 Republicans vote to convict, Donald Trump is convicted and removed from office. And that seems like a number the impeachment side might actually be able to attain.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2XEL8vo
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire