The Senate has long taken the position (not without some controversy) that the vote to disqualify an official from again seeking office requires only a simple majority vote, not the higher two-thirds threshold.
The Senate’s practice in impeachment cases has been to hold separate votes on removal and disqualification. The removal vote is the same as the vote on whether to convict on the charges presented by the House’s referral of impeachment. The Constitution’s threshold for conviction and removal is “two-thirds of the [Senators] present.” But disqualification is different. The Senate has long taken the position (not without some controversy) that the vote to disqualify an official from again seeking office requires only a simple majority vote, not the higher two-thirds threshold.
Trump’s potential impeachment represents the first time since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, which established presidential term limits, that the United States faces the prospect of removing a first-term president who is actively seeking reelection. (Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both in their second terms.) That means this is also the first time the Senate can consider whether to remove the president separately from disqualifying him. And it should consider this option if Congress truly cares about empowering the voters, through the mechanism of the Electoral College, to decide whether to give the incumbent a second term.
The phone call with the leader of Ukraine—during which Trump requested an investigation into his potential 2020 opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden—is different. Now, we have a first-term president who sought to use the powers of his office to tilt the electoral playing field against the opposition party’s leading challenger. Trump, in other words, has attempted to distort the very remedy that Pelosi and others have been pushing for months as an alternative to impeachment: the idea that the voters, rather than Congress, should decide the president’s fate in the 2020 election.
Both Democrats and Republicans should be principled and patriotic when considering the grave matter of impeachment. In this hyperpolarized environment, it might be idealistic to expect Senate Republicans to elevate the integrity of elections over party loyalty. But decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus. As long as Trump can run again, Republicans cannot hide behind a claim that they are ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment. In that case, what’s the patriotic position for Republicans to take?https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/25/congress-should-remove-trump-from-office-but-let-him-run-again-228228
Trump said the new border wall was “impenetrable.” Smugglers are sawing through it…
Smugglers have found that all you need to cut through TRUMP‘S WALL is a $100 saw.
President Donald Trump promised a wall on the border would radically change undocumented immigration and customs enforcement. But it turns out newly built sections of the president’s wall aren’t as sturdy as he promised: Smugglers have been using a commercial saw to cut through it.