Thread: S.C. during oral arguments ignored the proper venue, to try a President for crimes.

.
What has become increasingly apparent in the case being discussed (USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024), is, the very fabric of our Presidency is under attack and being made susceptible to the whims and passions of political partisan opponents by ignoring the unique due process procedure thoughtfully placed in our Constitution to deal with a President who might violate his public trust and engage in acts thought to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


As confirmed by historical evidence during the making of our constitution, and with respect to a President who might violate their public trust and cause injuries to society itself, our founders rightfully concluded the first step to be taken was for the people, through their Representatives, to accuse and charge that President of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


The next step in the unique due process procedure adopted to address charges lodged against the President by the people is to conduct a trial to determine guilt or innocence. And our wise founding fathers as a preponderance of the evidence confirms (e.g., see Federalist No 65) the United States Senate, and not our ordinary judicial system, is the proper venue to conduct such a trial.




Hamilton convincingly argued that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”


“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,”


Hamilton went on to note:


“The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”




And if by chance the President was indeed found guilty of the charges complained of by the people, not only would that president then be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust but would then be “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “ within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)




So, here we are today, with the very due process procedure agreed upon by the adoption of our Constitution being ignored, and in doing so, opening the door for our Presidency in future years to be exposed to the very uninformed and dangerous passions and prejudices of self-interested political actors feared of by our founders. Even our Supreme Court appears to have lost its spine, or has joined in on the attack on our Constitution, and is willing to be an accomplice in subverting the very intentions and beliefs under which the unique due process procedure was adopted to deal with those who violate a public trust.


.


JWK


As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas