Trump called Romney the charges in the tweet, but could this actually happen? A look back in time

nearvideo President Trump goes on the Offensive, amid charges battle

Trump rips top Democrats urge impeachment request; response to ‘Five.’

You never know when President Trump could fire out a tweet, targeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

“I think this means that you, along with all those tedious ‘Agreed’ with them, all the Accused immediately!” tweeted the President.

Trump also Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, described as “a fool” in a tweet, the introduction of the hashtag “#impeach mittromney.”

How would that happen? Could this be done?

The conventional argument is that no house members and senators are accused of. That’s true for the most part – although the house charges Tennessee, Sr., William Blount has – twice – in the 18th century. Century. But we’ll come back to that in a minute.


Article I, section 2 of the Constitution gives the house “the sole Power of impeachment.” Article I, section 3, of the Constitution awards the Senate “to try the sole Power, all Impeachments.” Then, article II, section 4 of the Constitution articulates who comes for impeachment: “The President, the Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office, on impeachment, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other serious crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The Constitution is clear that the President and the Vice-President is eligible for impeachment. But what is a “civil officer is?”

Democrats with Intel to keep hidden from the Committee to impeachment facts before the public, says WSJ’s Kim road l

Democrats in Congress base past provide precedent and with the House Intelligence Committee, accuse the President of Trump, instead of the legal Committee to shrowd their actions from the public, said Wall Street Journal columnist Kim road l.

It was found that a “civil Officer” is someone appointed subject to the President and Senate confirmation as a Cabinet official or a Federal judge. The accused has, why the house and different Federal judge William Belknap was in the course of the years, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (who bore the nickname of “Old bacon face”) and the Secretary of. In other words, house members and senators are not “civil officers,” and thus, exempt from the charge.

There is no mechanism in the Constitution, for the voters “recall” how is it possible for some state officials. The President, the Vice President, house and Senate members serve a fixed term. However, article I, section 5 of the Constitution grants the house and to punish the Senate-authority “, to its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the consent of two-thirds, to be a member to exclude.”


The house has only expelled five members in its history. The house kicked out three in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy. The youngest were the expulsions Rep. Michael Myers, D-Pa were., in the years 1980 and Rep. Jim Traficant, D-Ohio, 2002. A jury convicted Myers of bribery in “Abscam” scandal. Was Traficant was convicted on a variety of charges.

With the Constitution’s “exclusion clause,” it is strange that the house would always try, the opponent is a member of the other body – the “civil Officer” is a Problem, in spite of. But this is what happens if the house is accused, of Tennessee, Sr., William Blount in 1797.

WARNING GRAPHIC LANGUAGE: Trump calls Democrats ” impeachment request ‘bull’ s—‘

Charlie Kirk and Anthony Big ribs Democrats weigh in Trump to push through their removal.

One could argue that the accusation was extra-constitutional, and, at the very least, unfair. Why should the house have the opportunity, charges senator, but the Senate does not have the ability to move against a house member? After all, explains the Constitution, the house holds “the sole Power of impeachment.”

This brings us to the curious case of Sen. Blount – who, by the way, have not-so-great nicknames such as “Old bacon face.”

In 1797, President John Adams learned that Blount and others offered help in the UK use, what is controlled is now in Louisiana and Florida, and later by the Spaniards. Blount didn’t want Spain to the fork in the region to France. He fretted that such a step could reduce the country of the value of its own. So he tried to cut a deal with the British.


The house of representatives found, Blount’s gambit and agreed to charge him. It was the first impeachment of any kind in the history of the United States.

The Senate has not technically act on the house bill of indictment for Blount. To banish the exercise of its powers under article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the Senate, in fact, Blount agreed to because of his conspiracy with the United Kingdom. So, Blount carries the ignominious distinction of being the first house or the Senate-a member expelled from Congress and indicted. But to be clear, the Senate, the implementation of an impeachment, Blount’s guilt, innocence, or fitness for office. The Senate has simply chosen to expel him.

Whether you believe it or not, in January 1798, the house took another stab trying to accuse Blount. The house approved five articles of impeachment and sent them to the Senate. The Senate dispatched the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, James Mathers to Knoxville, to serve, TENNESSEE, is a summons to Blount to appear in Washington for his Senate study.


Word not fast travel back then. After his return to Tennessee, Mathers Blount was discovered, now serves as speaker of the Tennessee house. Blount did not return to Washington with Mathers. But the Senate elects for the conduct of the impeachment proceedings, without Blount in place. To not start the trial until Christmas eve day, 1798.

And you thought it was a big deal to approve when the Senate voted, the first version of Obamacare on Christmas eve day, 2009.


Attorneys for Blount argued that the Senate has not the right to indictment for a trial. After all, threatening the senator is not a “civil Officer” as proscribed by article II, section 4 of the Constitution, the candidate, the removal from office. In addition, was not Blount once in the Senate more.

In January, 1799, the Senate, finally, the Blount impeachment resolved. The Senate rejected a resolution that he is trying should have anyway, because he’s a U.S. senator. The Senate then approved a second resolution, declaring that it lacked the jurisdiction to try Blount at all.

And that was the last time anyone ever tried to “accuse” a member of the house or the Senate.

The concept of parliamentary “precedent” means an amount, in the operations of the house of representatives and the Senate. But only because of the Senate, the Blount not treated the case, as it did, means that there is a strict procedural “precedent” for the future impeachments. The Senate was not clear, lacks the reasons for the “jurisdiction” question, to Blount when it came. Didn’t make it to the Senate with an impeachment, since he is no longer a senator (or a “civil Officer” for that matter)? Or, has dismissed the Senate, the impeachment proceedings, because the house article bounced upside down with the Constitution, the expulsion of the legislature clause in article I, section 5?


If President Trump charges to ship, Pelosi, or Romney wants to episode, the house would have to initiate such a process if the members are of the opinion that it is also possible, on the basis of the Blount -. There is a reason for the accused not the house, other legislators since the childhood of the Republic. And in view of the entanglements of the Blount case, who represents a “civil Officer”, it is doubtful the house would back the creation of such an indictment against another legislator.

You would only try to sell you.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular