dtucker300 wrote:
Hi Slatten, I guess we will have to wait and see because as you stated, the article covers possibilities open to interpretation. My interpretation is that The Constitution is very explicit about it being only the Chief Justice who presides over the proceedings. I don't think Harris or Leahy or anyone else can preside unless, maybe, all interested and involved parties agreed in advance. But when has that ever stopped anyone?
The key, according to the above article/excerpts from it, is that Mr. Trump is no longer the president, thus possibly losing The Chief Justice in the largely ceremonial role of presiding over the impeachment. But, we shall see, Tuck.
"In Roberts' absence, the responsibility to preside may fall to Vice President Kamala Harris, as incoming president of the Senate, or to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as president pro tempore, according to experts."
University of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, a leading constitutional scholar, has also been making the case that the chief justice is the best choice and one authorized by the Constitution.
"The question should be whether the impeached officer was president at the time of impeachment. Here, he was, so Roberts presides," Vladeck wrote on Twitter.
"And if it seems odd to you that the Constitution doesn't speak to this scenario, here's a better one: Who presides over the trial if the *Vice President* is impeached?" he continued. "IF NOTHING ELSE, IT'S AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW AMBIGUOUS SO MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION IS (and always has been)."
"Some Republicans, including former federal appellate judge Michael Luttig, have argued that a Senate impeachment trial for a former president is entirely unconstitutional and, therefore, that Roberts should have no role."
(All excerpts came from the link above, in my first posting)