Tom Harkin: “Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the use and the continued use of the word ``jurors'' when referring to the Senate sitting…”

“Mr. Chief Justice, I object to the use and the continued use of the word ``jurors'' when referring to the Senate sitting as triers in a trial of the impeachment of the President of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the following: First, article I, section 3, of the Constitution says the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments--not the courts, but the Senate. Article III of the Constitution says the trial of all crimes, except in the cases of impeachment, shall be by jury--a tremendous exculpatory clause when it comes to impeachments. Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the writings in ``The Federalist Papers,'' especially No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton, in which he is outlining the reasons why the framers of the Constitution gave the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. I won't read it all, but I will read this pertinent sentence: There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law and the party who is to receive or suffer it. Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the 26 rules of the Senate, adopted by the Senate, governing impeachments. Nowhere in any of those 26 rules is the word ``juror'' or ``jury'' ever used. Next, Mr. Chief Justice, I base my objection on the tremendous differences between regular jurors and Senators sitting as triers of an impeachment. Regular jurors, of course, are chosen, to the maximum extent possible, with no knowledge of the case.…”