While many whom we had thought shared our devotion to liberty were doing things like removing the word “Peace” from their mastheads and calling for “sand to be turned into silicon,” (that is, nuking the desert countries), we were among the precious few responsible voices calling for responses in accordance with peaceful, prosperous and free societies, grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity.

Here’s a recap of some of those efforts:

• 9/11/2001: In the immediate, real-time unfolding of the horrific events in New York, and despite even some internal dissent that we speak out, Independent’s founder and president David J. Theroux led the way in our drafting and posting to Independent’s home page a statement denouncing the terrorist attacks and urging that they not be allowed to be used as fodder for new government powers. It was later edited and issued as a News Release.
• Independent issues a call for the issuance of the Constitutionally-provided Letters of Marque and Reprisal for the capture of Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive—a task it subsequently took the U.S. military 10 years to accomplish. Rep. Ron Paul later introduced H.R.3076: The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 in Congress.
  Imagine the savings in liberty, lives, and fortunes spent in the fruitless occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Independent established the Center on Peace and Liberty, hiring Ivan Eland as its Director and Charles V. Peña, as well as working with many others in furthering the principles of liberty against calls for increased government powers at home and abroad.

Because of our unique voice questioning invasive, unconstitutional wars, our Fellows regularly garnered major media coverage, including on ABC, PBS, CNN, CNBC, Fox, C-SPAN, and more.

Events

In the spring of 2002, we organized the first, major, national event to challenge the “War on Terror,” with a sold-out audience of over 1,000 (we even had scalpers!), held in San Francisco’s Herbst Theater:

Understanding America’s Terrorist Crisis: What Should Be Done?, featured Gore Vidal, Lewis H. Lapham, and a panel of discussants: Barton J. Bernstein (Stanford University), Robert Higgs (Senior Fellow, Independent Institute), and Thomas Gale Moore (Hoover Institution)

In conjunction with the event, the San Francisco Chronicle ran an op-ed adapted from Gore Vidal’s then new book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: The New War on Freedom : Give me liberty, or give me . . . what? Security?

Video here.

Before and subsequent to this, we organized an ongoing series of events, many covered by C-SPAN:

Why Freedom Matters More Than Ever, with David R. Henderson

Big Brother is Watching, with James Bamford, Author of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency

The U.S. War on Terrorism: Myths and Realities, with Lewis H. Lapham, Alan W. Bock, J. Victor Marshall, Seth Rosenfeld, and Paul H. Weaver

Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, with Daniel Ellsberg and a panel of discussants, held at the University of California, Berkeley

Preemptive War Strategy: A New U.S. Empire?, with Joel S. Beinin, Edward A. Olson, and Ivan Eland

PATRIOT Acts: I & II: The New Assault on Liberty?, with Ivan Eland, David Cole (Georgetown University) Margaret Russell (ACLU), and James Bovard

Terrorism and Iraq: What is the Nature of the Relationship? A Debate, with Don Smith, Stephen Hayes, Walter Russell Mead, and Ivan Eland

The Future of Iraq: Democracy or Quagmire?, with George Bisharat, Ivan Eland, James H. Noyes, and Christopher Scheer

Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, with Robert Higgs

The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, with Ivan Eland

How—And How Not—To Fight Terrorism, with Michael Scheuer

In 2005, we held a 2-day conference at the Willard Hotel in Washington, The War on Terror: Implications for Domestic Security and Civil Liberties, with Ron Paul as the keynote speaker.

In 2006, we opened an office in DuPont Circle in Washington, DC, with Independent fellows Ivan Eland, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, and Gabriel Gasave moving there. The building was a former mansion with a ballroom very well suited to holding frequent events and we pursued a series of bi-coastal events both there and in the Bay Area:

Innovative Solutions for Iraq: Independent Policy Forum & Open House Reception

How to Really Win the War on Terrorism, with Charles V. Peña, Roger W. Cressey, and Joseph Cirincione

The Reality and Legacy of the Iraq War, with Ivan Eland and Mark Danner

Living With a Nuclear Iran and North Korea?, with Ivan Eland, Charles V. Peña, Trita Parsi, and Doug Bandow

Troop Withdrawal: Looking Beyond Iraq, with Ivan Eland, Leon T. Hadar, and David R. Henderson

New Directions for Peace and Security, with Carl P. Close, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, James L. Payne, and Edward P. Stringham

A series of events on our book, Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance, by Mike M. Moore (former Editor, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).

Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?, with Robert Higgs

Is the “War on Terror” Creating Terrorism?, with Ian S. Lustick, Ivan Eland, and D. Gareth Porter

Bush, Obama, and Presidential Power, with Ivan Eland, Ron Paul, and Richard Shenkman

Can the U.S. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?, with Ivan Eland, Peter Galbraith, and Charles V. Peña

Civil Liberties and Security in an Age of Terrorism, with Robert Higgs, Anthony Gregory, and Mary L. G. Theroux

Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom, with Ron Paul

Whither America: A Foreign Policy Debate Among Realists, Nationalists and Internationalists, with Ivan Eland, Michael Lind, and Harry Nau

Liberty and 21st-Century Thought Control , with Edward P. Stringham, Jeffrey Tucker, Richard K. Vedder, Williamson M. Evers, Wen Fa, David J. Theroux, and Patrick Reasonover

Which brings us to 9/11’s spawn: the “Coronacrisis” and our many virtual events over the past 18 months, starting 3 days following the declared “3-week” shutdown:

Fear: The Fuel of Government Power—Coronavirus Panic, with Graham H. Walker, Mary L. G. Theroux

Corona Crisis and Leviathan, with Graham H. Walker and Mary L. G. Theroux

How to Restore Freedom to Americans in This Time of Pandemic?, with Graham H. Walker and Randall G. Holcombe

Civil Liberties and the Surveillance State, with Mary L. G. Theroux and Erich J. Prince

In addition, Independent produced numerous books, policy reports, and many articles in The Independent Review and online.

Books

Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, by Robert Higgs

The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, by Ivan Eland

Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11, by Robert Higgs

Neither Liberty nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government, by Robert Higgs

Opposing the Crusader State: Alternatives to Global Interventionism, edited by Carl P. Close and Robert Higgs

Twilight War: The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance, by Mike M. Moore

Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, by Ivan Eland

Depression, War, and Cold War: Challenging the Myths of Conflict and Prosperity, by Robert Higgs

The Civilian and the Military: A History of the American Antimilitarist Tradition, by Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., with a foreword by Ralph Raico

No War for Oil: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East, by Ivan Eland

Delusions of Power: New Explorations of the State, War, and Economy, by Robert Higgs

Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (25^th Anniversary Edition), by and with a new preface by Robert Higgs

American Surveillance: Intelligence, Privacy, and the Fourth Amendment, by Anthony Gregory

War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure, by Ivan Eland

Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History, by Randall G. Holcombe, with a foreword by Barry R. Weingast

The Independent Review articles (partial list)

By Robert Higgs:

• Government Protects Us? (Fall 2002)
• Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power (Winter 2005/06)
• On “Winning the War” (Summer 2006)
• Caging the Dogs of War: How Major U.S. Neoimperialist Wars End (Fall 2008)
• To Fight or Not to Fight: War’s Payoffs to U.S. Leaders and to the American People (Summer 2011)
• Are Questions of War and Peace Merely One Issue among Many for Libertarians? (Fall 2011)
• “War Is Horrible, but . . .” (Fall 2012)
• Moderation in Response to Provocation Is No Vice (Summer 2017)

Perfecting Tyranny: Foreign Intervention as Experimentation in State Control, by Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail Hall Blanco

And of course our the symposium in the current issue (Fall 2021): 20 Years of the “War on Terror”

Other

And for a little light relief: Episode 5 of Love Gov: From First Date to Mandate; and as a running theme in Love Gov2: A Crisis Not to Waste.

For those of us who thought we “knew” the “facts” behind 9/11 and subsequent events, I commend to you the recent article by Senior Fellow Angelo M. Codevilla, “Graveyard of Narratives: Afghanistan, et al., for the record,” for an insider’s exposé of the false narratives behind the “War on Terror.”

The real legacy has been the deterioration of American’s traditional attitudes in support of liberty and checks on government power. The following surveys, taken just before and after 9/11, capture some of these dramatic changes at the time:

All has now led to today, and the attempt to mold a new generation to fear and hate “others;” reject Truth, Goodness, Science, and Beauty; and be submissive citizens to an almighty, paternalistic State.

There is nothing that would have made me happier than us not having been right. And of course, the ground had been prepared well in advance, with many decades of pervasive U.S. policies of global interventionism and coercive “nation building,” creating a huge, domestic military-industrial-congressional complex of massive waste and corporate welfare. Internationally, such measures were propping up corrupt and brutal regimes, provoking deep resentments, and helping to foster dangerous, anti-Western, terrorist movements. With 9/11, instead of holding accountable those specific individuals responsible for the massive deaths and destruction in New York and Virginia, the Washington establishment tripled and quadrupled down by launching even more interventionism and nation building but to a far greater extent.

Tragically, everything we warned about above has since come to pass: massive numbers of deaths and maimings, trillions of dollars misspent, runaway government spending and debt, extensive political and special-interest pork and corruption, negation of constitutional rights, including the loss of any expectation of privacy, and much more. This list is too long and too painful to enumerate.

The good news is that today, most people are increasingly coming to learn the hard lessons of this sorry misadventure and folly of the “War on Terror.”

The bad news is that virtually none of the measures that could be undone have yet been and are unlikely to be without our discrediting the scam involved. Leviathan and its beneficiaries love the new powers and they will not give up on their own.

Who is with us?

The post 9/11, Independent Institute and 20 Years of the “War on Terror” appeared first on The Beacon.

In a recent post in The Beacon, I contemplated whether I should wear a mask to class. Throughout campus, there are signs that say Face Coverings are Expected, but as I noted, not mandated. Classes are now back in session, and that decision was easier than I contemplated.

When I got to campus, few people were wearing masks outside, and many were maskless inside the building. In my classes, only about half of the students wore masks. With half the class unmasked, there seemed to be little point in my wearing one, so I didn’t.

Subsequently, I received an email (to all faculty) from the president of the faculty union noting that “students are not following FSU’s ‘expectation’ that masks are to be worn indoors” and asking me to sign a petition to the university’s president and Board of Trustees making masks mandatory.

I doubt that many readers are interested in my own personal experiences, but I do think it is interesting to see (1) how things are playing out in a state that prohibits mask mandates, and (2) how college students view an expectation that they wear masks indoors.

From their own actions, it is clear that many students resist attempts to pressure them into wearing masks. Some students who were wearing masks told me that they did not care whether others wore them, but chose to wear one just to prevent other people from feeling uncomfortable. Among college students, anyway, masks and mask mandates are not popular.

Meanwhile, in a state that prohibits mask mandates, some people in positions of authority (university administrators, a faculty union president, and school boards across the state) are demanding and in some cases implementing their own policies that violate the governor’s policy.

The policy prohibiting mask mandates comes from the governor. So, I do find it interesting that the president of our faculty union will present a petition to the university president and Trustees, rather than to the governor.

Suppose they were to succeed, resulting in a mask mandate at the university. Would those on campus then recognize the authority of the president and Trustees and mask up, or would they recognize the higher authority of the governor and claim it is still their choice?

My previous post on the subject referred to some people as anti-authoritarian authoritarians. They seem to be trying to claim authority over those below them while trying to undermine the authority of those above them. I’m watching with interest.

The post To Mask, Or Not? A State of Resistance appeared first on The Beacon.

The university’s announced policy was that masks were recommended, but it was up to individuals to make that decision. That is in keeping with Governor Ron DeSantis’s executive order that bans mask mandates. My decision was not to wear one. I’m vaccinated, healthy, and willing to take that risk. I’m aware of the argument that I may increase the risk to others, who in this case are all college students. I am a senior citizen, so presumably more at risk than my students.

Yesterday I received an email signed by four high FSU officials, including outgoing President John Thrasher. Among other things, it says in bold type, We expect everyone to wear a face-covering or mask at all times when inside any FSU facility, even if you are vaccinated. My question is: should I wear a mask?

One interesting thing about the email is its authoritarian tone. It also expects other actions, including the expectation that everyone gets vaccinated. It’s not exactly a mandate, because that would directly violate the governor’s executive order, but it’s interesting that the message would be written in such an authoritarian tone when that message itself is anti-authoritarian by resisting the governor’s policy of letting individuals decide for themselves.

Some will be tempted to say I should follow the science, typically followed by a statement that the science says to wear a mask. But this is not a question for science, it is a public policy question. Science can provide information about the consequences of various actions but is insufficient to determine public policy.

For example, science can tell us that driving faster is more likely to result in accidents, serious injury, and death, but science cannot determine what is the optimal speed limit. Similarly, optimal policy to respond to COVID is not a question for science, even though science can provide information about the consequences of various policies.

The policy of the state of Florida is that whether to wear a mask is my personal choice. I work at a state university that is actively opposing the policy of those above them in the hierarchy of state government.

Should I yield to these anti-authoritarian authoritarians and wear a mask?

The post To Mask, Or Not? Should I Yield to Authoritarians Who Resist Authority? appeared first on The Beacon.

Los Angeles is reimposing its mask mandate, some New York legislators are proposing to follow Los Angeles by reimposing mask mandates, North Carolina is extending its COVID mandates, and talk of continuing or reimposing mandates is taking place nationwide. Meanwhile, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, who has downplayed the increase in COVID cases, has been accused of killing people with his anti-mandate policies.

Mandate supporters must recognize that the mandates themselves have caused much of the harm, economic and otherwise, for the past year and a half. The economic aspects are obvious. Governments have forced businesses to close, prevented “unessential” workers from keeping their jobs, and disrupted the supply chains of businesses that were allowed to remain open. Meanwhile, people out of work have had more mental health problems, drug issues, and suicides.

The essence of the issue is not whether the benefits of mandates outweigh the costs. It is whether people should be free to decide for themselves how to respond to COVID rather than have government mandate what they must do.

One thing we must recognize is that COVID is never going to disappear completely. Like the flu or the common cold, the virus is likely to remain. What policies should remain to deal with it?

At this point, everyone in the United States (except young children) have access to a vaccine, so people can choose to get vaccinated and be highly protected. Sure, it’s still possible for vaccinated people to get the disease, but much less likely, and with much milder consequences. That’s why even though the number of new cases is spiking, the number of deaths is not. Many of the most vulnerable have chosen to get vaccinated.

People who think it is prudent to shelter at home, to avoid large crowds, or to wear masks, are free to do so without government mandates. Meanwhile, the spike in cases is almost entirely among the unvaccinated, who have made their own choices. In one way they are doing everyone else a favor when they get the virus and help build herd immunity.

The spike in new cases is among those who have chosen to remain vulnerable. Everyone should not face mandates because some have made these choices. Meanwhile, those who are vaccinated face a very small risk. It’s not zero risk, but in pre-COVID times, people interacted with others and risked getting the flu, the common cold, and other communicable diseases. COVID risks are analogous, for the vaccinated.

Recognizing the COVID will never completely disappear, and that those who want to can get vaccinated to protect themselves from it, it is time to set aside “temporary” emergency policies.

A year and a half of restrictions on individual liberty is too long, has given the government too much power, and has set a bad precedent that is likely to have negative effects on our liberties down the road. Florida is one state that has taken the path of freedom over mandates. That’s one reason I’m happy to be a Floridian.

The post It’s Time to End the COVID Mandates appeared first on The Beacon.

The debate on the effectiveness of gun control measures to reduce firearm violence distracts attention from the real motive behind gun control. Nobody wants more gun violence, so focusing on gun violence shifts the debate in favor of gun control. What the proponents of gun control really want is control, and the gun violence argument is merely a means to the end that they actually seek–a disarmed population. Arguments that look at the facts to see whether gun control achieves those ends are ineffective persuaders, because gun control advocates want regulation, regardless of its effectiveness.

It should be obvious that proposals such as those to tax ammunition sales will be ineffective controls on firearm violence. Can anyone really think that someone intent on illegally using a firearm would be deterred because ammunition is so expensive? For people who know little about firearms, limiting the number of rounds a magazine is capable of holding may sound promising, but magazines can be swapped out in seconds.

Focusing the debate on gun violence rather than on individual rights gives a debating advantage to gun control advocates, because nobody wants more gun violence. The argument shifts to whether regulations are effective rather than on preserving the rights of citizens. Arguing that proposed gun control measures would be ineffective cannot persuade gun control advocates, because that’s not their big concern. Their ultimate objective of gun control advocates is not safety. They want control.

The post The Name Says It All: Gun Control Isn’t About Reducing Firearm Violence; It’s About Control appeared first on The Beacon.

Google, Facebook, and the others are private companies and people voluntarily choose to use their services. Freedom-loving people should not advocate interfering with those voluntary relationships. If people dislike using those platforms because of their biases, they have the right to start their own. People of a certain age will remember when Myspace was the dominant social media platform, only to be displaced by Facebook.

In the short run, alternatives are limited. Google, Facebook, and others gained their market dominance because of their reputations for lack of bias. Looking for something? Google it and you’ll find it. But if people begin perceiving that their searches are biased, they can use other search engines. Want to interact on line with your friends? Use Facebook. But if people begin perceiving Facebook as biased, that opens the opportunity for competing social media platforms.

That’s the freedom-oriented way to deal with companies when people perceive problems with their product offerings. To advocate government intervention is to advocate replacing freedom of choice in the market with government control of the flow of information. Does anybody really think that government control of information would lessen bias compared with free market competition?

Yes, it takes time for alternatives to establish themselves after people perceive problems with the status quo, but the “creative destruction” that Joseph Schumpeter saw in capitalism will provide alternatives when consumers want them. Let the market work rather than clamoring for government intervention.

While some social media platforms seem to be leaning decidedly left, there is still a lot of information available from the right, starting with talk radio and Fox News. Don’t like what you’re getting on Facebook? See what Tucker Carlson has to say.

That said, social media platforms are trying to have it both ways in taking responsibility for the content on their platforms. On the one hand, they say that they are merely the platforms for people who are posting content, and as platform providers are not responsible for what appears on their platforms. On the other hand, they are actively determining what appears on their platforms, in the same way that newspapers decide what stories to run or television networks decide their programming.

They are taking responsibility, and then saying they are not responsible.

The arguments those platforms make for escaping legal liability for their content hinges on their being open platforms. People can say what they want, and they are responsible for their speech. But if the platforms are actively deciding who can speak, and if some of what they say can be censored, then the platforms are actively taking responsibility for their content, and should be held liable for that responsibility that they have voluntarily assumed.

Either, they are open platforms and people can say what they want, making contributors responsible for what they say, or they are managing what can appear on their platforms, making the platforms themselves responsible for what appears on them.

Can social media platforms really say they are not responsible for what appears on their platforms, when in fact they are taking the responsibility of determining what constitutes suitable content?

Keep government out of regulating social media platforms, but make them assume responsibility for their actions. If they determine what content can appear on their platforms, they should be responsible and legally liable for that content, just like a newspaper or television station.

The post Social Media Platform Bias: It’s Their Right, But... appeared first on The Beacon.

The linked article notes that about 25 percent of Black workers and 19.1 percent of Hispanic workers earn less than $15 an hour, compared to 13.1 percent of white workers, so the law would disproportionately throw minority workers out of work. The article says this would “help” minority workers, but it is difficult to see how making their employment illegal would help them. Could anyone believe that if the minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour, no low-wage workers would lose their jobs?

It’s actually worse than that for low-productivity workers, because one way people can increase their productivity and earn a higher income is by learning on the job. If people are priced out of the labor market and can’t get their first job, they won’t be able to increase their productivity through on-the-job training. In a society that increasingly is cognizant of enacting public policies to help minorities, it is shocking that some are proposing a policy that would make it illegal for many minorities to hold jobs.

Some people think that corporations make lots of money and so can afford to pay their workers more, but corporations are not charities, and this thought misunderstands what motivates employers to hire people. Regardless of how profitable a company is, it will not hire people who cost the company more than they bring back in income.

Do we really want to make it illegal for low-productivity people to work? Do we really want to enact a policy that disproportionately disadvantages minorities? Many states have already done so, and there appears to be increasing support at the federal level to limit the right to work for some of our most-disadvantaged citizens.

The post Should It Be Illegal for Low Productivity People to Work? appeared first on The Beacon.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT

OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the United States Senate on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Because Defendant is no longer president, vice president, or a civil officer of the United States, the Article of Impeachment should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

Defendant is accused by the House of Representatives of “Incitement of Insurrection.” This charge results from a riot that occurred on January 6, 2021, during a joint session of Congress. Defendant and others gathered in Washington, D.C., were concerned about various irregularities in the presidential election and the efforts of state courts and state election officials to alter state election law despite the Constitution’s clear command that such matters rest with the state legislatures.

Defendant did address a large crowd of people on that day and stated that “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Upon hearing of the events at the Capitol turned from peaceful to violent, the Defendant took actions to curb the behavior. For example, Defendant posted the following on Twitter: “But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.” Moreover, in the days after January 6, Defendant continued to call for peace and healing: “Now is the time for our nation to heal. And it’s time for peace and for calm. Respect for law enforcement is the foundation of the MAGA agenda.”

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, Defendant’s term of office ended and he returned to private life. Six days later, members of the House of Representatives delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate. At the time of delivery, Joe Biden held the office of President of the United States. Defendant was in private life in Palm Beach, Florida.

II. Legal Argument

Because Defendant is not an elected or appointed officer of the United States, he is not subject to impeachment. The Constitution in Article II, Section 4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In the Philadelphia Convention, the issue of executive removal was discussed only in the context of a sitting president. For example, James Madison cited instances where after election the president could lose his mental faculties or pervert his administration into a scheme of oppression. Hence, some constitutional method for removal was necessary. A main concern of the delegates was making the sitting president too dependent on another branch of government. Hence, the mention of high crimes and misdemeanors and the supermajority requirement in the Senate.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as an inquiry into the actions of “public men” as opposed to private citizens who are not in office. Importantly, in Federalist 69 Hamilton states: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” The logical interpretation of this statement is that while in office the president can be impeached. After he leaves office, legal remedies must be sought in state or federal court systems.

Moreover, in discoursing on Article II, Section 4, Mr. Justice Story in his Exposition on the Constitution describes the constitutional provision as enumerating “who shall be liable to be removed from office by impeachment.” Obviously, a person must be in office to be removed. This is the general context and understanding of impeachment.

Opponents of Defendant’s Motion will no doubt point to Article I, Section 3, which provides: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Hence, they argue that one does not have to be in office to be disqualified from holding another office. Such a reading is a stretch of the text. The natural language is that one must first be in office, be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and thus be disqualified from ever holding another office of honor.

Although not strictly a legal argument, Defendant expects opponents of his motion to raise the specter that absent the Senate accepting jurisdiction over this matter, then a future official would be emboldened to take nefarious actions on the eve of departure because he could not be tried in the Senate. Defendant submits that if an individual with malicious intent sought to engage in egregious misconduct, say, stealing from the public purse, conviction in the Senate is no deterrent. The Senate, sitting as a court, has no power to imprison, fine, or forfeit assets. The real deterrent to presidential misconduct is the tarnishing of a historical legacy, rather than avoidance of Senate trial and conviction, which is, with due respect, more theatre than legal proceeding.

In summary, the plain language of the text and historical commentary indicate that impeachment is a sword to be unsheathed only against malefactors holding office. The main point of impeachment is to remove the malefactor from office and thus end his reign of folly or crime. Defendant is no longer in office. He cannot be removed from office and is not subject to impeachment.

III. Conclusion

Impeachment is inherently political. Defendant, having already been through a show trial in the Senate that resulted in his acquittal, knows this to be true. However, unlike the prior trial, Defendant is not an officer of the United States. Because Defendant no longer holds public office, he cannot be put on trial in the Senate for allegedly inciting an insurrection. Accordingly, the Senate should dismiss the Article of Impeachment for lack of jurisdiction.

The post The Senate Should Dismiss the Article of Impeachment appeared first on The Beacon.