On the recordJanuary 26, 2021
the theory that the impeachment of a former official is unconstitutional is flat-out wrong by every frame of analysis: constitutional text, historical practice, precedent, and basic common sense. It has been completely debunked by constitutional scholars from all across the political spectrum. Now, the junior Senator from Kentucky read one clause from the Constitution about the Senate's impeachment powers. He left out another from article I, section 3: ``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. If the Framers intended impeachment to merely be a vehicle to remove sitting officials from their office, they would not have included that additional provision: disqualification from future office. The Constitution also gives the Senate the ``sole power'' to try all impeachments. So what did past Senates decide on this question? In 1876, President Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap, literally raced to the White House to tender his resignation before the House was set to vote on his impeachment. Not only did the House move forward with the impeachment, but the Senate convened a trial and voted as a Chamber that Mr. Belknap could be tried ``for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.'' The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity. The history and precedent is clear.…





