Eric, I highly respect Prof. Dershowitz, but I think he's stretching logic.
Take this quote, for example:
It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification. The part of the Constitution he's quoting is setting a limit on judgment. There are two parts to that limit: removal, and disqualification. It makes no sense to argue that the wording should have been "or disqualification" in order to try former presidents, because that would make the limit needlessly ambiguous. "So which is it? Is the limit removal, or is the limit disqualification?"
As for bills of attainder, that's exactly why there is an impeachment process in the first place, because otherwise Congress would not be able to act against any single person, even a president currently sitting in office.
Yes, Trump is now a private citizen, but he's not being tried for actions while he was a private citizen. Instead, he's being tried for actions while he was still president.
Overall, I don't think presidents should be allowed to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in his final days in office, then simply run out the clock with regard to impeachment. And yes, I do believe it is worth it to disqualify him from holding public office ever again.
Tenchusatsu |
