June, 2019
Washington -- House Democrats have worked themselves into a dangerous dilemma: should the decision to impeach the president be decided on moral or on political grounds? The argument is strong to impeach on the former, given the moral unfitness of the president, but less so on the latter, given the likelihood that a drawn-out impeachment process with no conviction would only tighten vice's, not virtue's, grip on power. Doing the right thing morally might result in political defeat, leaving both morals and politics in shreds.
I think it was a mistake for the Speaker not to act immediately after receiving the Mueller Report, with all dispatch, both to impeach and to censure the president. That would have avoided the current, foreseeable impasse. Democrats would have done the right thing and could have moved on to their legislative agenda. The moral dilemma would then be for Senate Republicans to deal with.
But that did not happen, so what now?
I believe a good option for the House would be to pass a censure action, which accomplishes the moral imperative without the downside of impeachment. There is ample cause for censure, to include failure to comply with Article I powers of the legislative branch. However, the House should also open an impeachment inquiry to gather further evidence on other impeachable offenses and broaden it beyond the questions of the Mueller Report.
The Mueller Report dealt with only two issues: Russian election-tampering and obstruction of justice. The House Oversight and Judiciary committees should look beyond those subjects to include whether the president is fulfilling his constitutional obligation to enforce the rule of law in our overall federal system. The committees should use their powers to look at issues affecting others in our system who are also required to take an oath to uphold our Constitution and statutes, namely governors and state attorneys general. Are they able to fulfill their responsibilities faithfully under law given the actions of the Trump administration?
There are abundant examples of the use of illegal and unethical measures by the president to thwart the rule of law throughout the country, which should be added to the evidence for impeachment. These actions deal with a wide range of issues that adversely affect people's lives. Many have already resulted in lawsuits and petitions by state attorneys general, of both political parties, against the Trump administration. Many have not, leaving Americans with no place to turn when their lives are upended by a failure of the rule of law at all levels of government.
This review would provide an opportunity for ordinary Americans to form opinions on impeachment as it affects their everyday lives, their health and safety, their consumer protections, their human rights under law. Such opinions need time to ripen, once evidence is compiled. If the House censures the president on separation of powers and moral grounds, it will have done at least part of its duty and public opinion can solidify, or not*, on impeachment. In the meantime, the House can get on with doing the legislative work expected of it.
____________________________
*There is no guarantee, of course, that voters value the rule of law in their lives above other values they hold. George Will has written, "Trump was elected because many millions of Americans enjoy his boorishness. And he essentially promised to govern as a lout. Promise-keeping would be an unusual ground for impeachment." These are times that surely test Americans' character and values.
