For the record, I think it is constitutional. But Abramson (as he often does) overstates things. First, notwithstanding his use of the plural "trials," to the best of my knowledge the Senate has conducted an impeachment trial of a former official only once:Secretary Belknap. Second, and more importantly, the fact that the Senate conducted that trial doesn't mean the issue of whether it is constitutional for an impeached official to be tried by the Senate after that official has left office isn't a "live" issue. A majority of the Senate voted against a motion that sought dismissal of the Belknap trial because had resigned. But that decision by the Senate didn't resolve the Constitutional issue. As Chief Justice Marshall declared "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Or, as it sometimes is put: The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." The Senate may have its view of the Constitutionality of the actions it takes -- indeed, the Senate presumably thinks any and every law that it passes is Constitutional. But we know that isn't always the case -- that the legislative branch's view of the Constitutionality of its actions isn't determinative of the issue. Only the Supreme Court's view is determinative (and only up until the time a subsequent court adopts a different interpretation or the Constitution is amended).
So the issue is still "live" since it's never been addressed by the Supreme Court. However, it also doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. Why? Because just as in the Belknap case, there is nothing to stop those members of the Senate who think that the Constitution doesn't permit an impeached official to be tried after leaving office from voting to acquit on those grounds, even if a majority disagrees. So if 48 republican senators vote to dismiss but that motion is defeated, they can still vote to acquit on those same grounds and there is nothing that can be done about it. The Supreme Court doesn't review impeachments and senators don't have to explain their votes to acquit or convict.
So in the end, republicans will try to justify their votes to acquit based on their contention that the trial isn't permitted by the Constitution. And while they can be pilloried for taking that position, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
