RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution-11572040762

Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. She is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.

The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation. CONTINUE AT SITE

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

This essay was inspired by a persistent, evolutionary change in American attitudes toward Socialism and Capitalism. A Roper/Fortune Survey this past May found 43% of Americans believe Socialism would be good for the Country – a frightening conclusion for anyone who understands history. The second inspiration came from a John Steel Gordon op-ed written for the October 19-20, 2019 edition of the Wall Street Journal, “How Steam and Chips Remade the World,” in which he wrote of the world-changing effects of James Watt’s perfection of the steam engine in 1769 and the development of the Microprocessor in 1971 by Ted Hoff, a young scientist at Intel. His essay is testament to the benefits of free-market capitalism.

The basic principle of profits seems to be misunderstood by legions of young people, as well as veterans of the political scene who speak in grandiloquent terms of equality, while trying to secure for themselves positions of personal power. Their motives are selfish, not altruistic. Without profits, no company stakeholder is satisfied – not workers, customers, community, taxing authorities or shareholders, Bankrupt businesses help no one, other than a few bankruptcy lawyers.

Mr. Gordon’s words struck home, in part because with age comes reflection of things as they once were and as they now are, and of what the future holds – of how much better are our lives than those of our ancestors. My grandparents saw changes their parents could not have envisioned – the automobile, elevators, flight, radio, the automated assembly line, the modern flush toilet, television, the atomic bomb, polio vaccine, interstate highways. My parents saw changes their parents could never have envisioned – commercial jet travel, ATMs, personal computers, CT Scans and MRI machines, artificial hearts. And I have seen changes my parents never saw – the internet, self-driving cars, smart phones, robotic surgeries, social media, laser eye surgery. My point is not to list all technological advances, but to show how much and how exciting and how productive change has been in the past two hundred years. I wonder as to what changes my children and grandchildren will see that I shall not – advantages we cannot even envision. All of these improvements to our lives are a consequence of individuals and private businesses seeking profits. Now I worry that this dynamism will be brought to an end by those who advocate for the federalization of company charters and for a greater role of government in our lives, for example the concept of a government mandated emphasis on “stakeholders,” not shareholders. Keep in mind as well, every American worker who has a retirement plan has a stake in the private ownership of public companies. Do we really want to destroy the capital markets?