More Goofiness on Impeachment
Via Rich
My guess is that at this point, Blagojevich would go to the state Supreme Court and attempt to block the impeachment proceedings, claiming that he’s being investigated by federal prosecutors for criminal conduct and cannot defend himself against impeachment for fear of compromising his right against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court justices, all of whom have respect for the trial process, might be likely to accept that sort of argument.
On the other hand, the separation of powers gives the legislative branch of government the power to put elected officials on trial who are suspected, but not convicted of, criminal conduct.
The state constitution reads: “Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.”
So the framers of the constitution envisioned the possibility that a governor might commit criminal acts and that the Legislature, rather than wait for the criminal process to play out, would decide for the good of the state to remove the corrupt official.
An impeachment is a political process, not a criminal trial.
An impeachment has nothing to do with criminal law. The Governor could easily be impeached for violating civil laws as well–such as expending money not authorized by the Legislature. GIven there is no effect of an impeachment on a criminal trial –Rod can still claim the 5th Amendment–the Supreme Court would have no basis to act, and in fact, has no authority to act. It’s very clear in the Constitution of both Illinois and the United States, the only role of the courts in impeachment is for the Chief Justice to preside in the Senate.
This notion that impeachment is only about criminal acts is not what the clause is meant to deal with–it’s meant to deal with abuse of power. In fact, one can argue that a criminal act not related to one’s duties in government may or may not be something for which to impeach a government official. In some sense that’s what was decided with Heiple though that was a very murky situation.
December 16th, 2008 at
If in fact the Supreme Court accepted the Blagojevich argument then impeachment would be eviscerated. I believe there is a separate law that requires removal from office upon conviction for certain offenses. So, why would there ever be the need to impeach unless the process could be used for something other than a criminal offense.
I think what troubles me the most about what is happening is that the legislature and the media are equating the impeachment process with their notions of a trial. They constantly speak about due process and trial rights. There is an irony here because when the legislature seneses public outrage about an issue they have been known in the past to draft a bill and pass it and have the Governor sign it in one day. No one ever talks about due process when they want to pass a bill quickly.
As a citizen it is frustarting to watch what is going on and to be helpless in the face of inaction. This is a challenge to democracy that we appear to be unable to meet.
December 17th, 2008 at
The Supreme Court gambit is now out. I am beginning to think that something more needs to be done because the legislature appears unwilling to take any action at other than a snail’s pace.