E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Almost all Republican Senators – 45 out of 50 – agree with Donald
Trump’s lawyers that it would be unconstitutional to impeach Donald Trump
after he has left office. The legal
claim is weak,
but it is mighty convenient. It gives
them an excuse (a weak one, as I’ll explain) for voting to acquit without
having to take any position on whether his incitement of the riot of January 6,
and his bland, passive indifference as his devoted followers spread death and
destruction, were impeachable offenses. The
constitutional claim is being carefullydebated,
but it should not be taken seriously.
That is because the members themselves clearly do not take it seriously. They don’t care whether it is sound, and
their reasons for embracing it have nothing to do with its soundness. It is, if one may use a precise technical
term, bullshit.
The philosopher Harry Frankfurt, in his now-classic essay On Bullshit, defines the term to
mean words uttered with indifference to their truth.“It is just this lack of connection to a
concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as
the essence of bullshit.”The
bullshitter, Frankfurt observes, “does not care whether the things he says
describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit
his purpose.”He “does not reject the
authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no
attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the
truth than lies are.”
On January 26, Senator Rand Paul forced
a vote on his objection to Trump’s trial, claiming that a President cannot
constitutionally be impeached after he leaves office.He was supported by 45 Republicans, leading
many to think that there is no chance that Trump can be convicted by the
required two-thirds majority (which would mean that 17 Republicans would have
to vote to convict).
After his motion failed, Paul tweeted:
"45 Senators agreed that this sham of a 'trial' is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan
impeachment process. This 'trial' is dead on arrival in the Senate."Senator Susan Collins, who voted against
Paul’s motion, similarly told
reporters, “it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily
unlikely that the president will be convicted. Just do the math.”
Both are presuming that a vote against constitutionality
means a vote to acquit.That makes no
sense, if the Senators are concerned
about the Constitution.But the fact
that Paul and Collins are probably right shows that the Constitution has
nothing to do with what’s going on here.The constitutional analysis is exactly the kind of bullshit that
Frankfurt is talking about.
Now that the Senate has resolved the constitutional
question and decided it can go forward, the members, having been outvoted on
the jurisdictional question, are obligated to accept that decision and
considering Trump’s conduct on the merits.Judges
on appellate panels do that all the time.They don’t get out of their duty to decide the
case on the merits once it is properly placed before them. Or, if they are immovably committed to the
idea that the Senate trial is illegitimate, Senators can refuse to participate,
and boycott the trial.Of course, that would
make conviction more likely, because the Constitution says that it requires
“the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”The fewer the members present, the lower the
number needed to convict; just do the math.But if you’ve got no authority to participate, then that’s not your
concern, is it?
Either of these options, however, would infuriate some
part of the Republican party base, most of which loves Trump and the rest of
which finds him sickening.So Republican
Senators need a rationalization for voting to acquit without taking any
position at all on what Trump did.
The claim that Congress can’t impeach a former president,
which the Republicans have almost all rallied around, is actually pretty dubious.The Constitution gives impeachment two
functions, to remove a malefactor from office and to bar him from future
office.To confine it to only one of
those functions is like saying that a claw hammer can only be used to pound
nails, and mustn’t be used to pull them out again.
But those who deploy the constitutional argument don’t
care whether it is correct.The point is
to give legal cover to those who are acting from other motives, to give their
actions a false sheen of conscientious legality.The way you’ll know that they don’t take
their own argument seriously will be if they use the constitutional objection
as an excuse for voting to acquit Trump (as I confidently predict they will).In that context, it’s not an argument at
all.It’s bullshit.