[John Marquardt, thread article] EXCERPT the two Articles of Impeachment include the wording that Trump should not only be impeached, tried and removed from office, but that he also warrants “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

As the precedent set in the three previous trials of Federal judges has never been reversed by the Senate or adjudicated in any Federal court, the disqualification of President Trump would probably be decided by a separate majority vote, rather than the two-thirds vote on the two Articles of Impeachment.

Therefore, even though there is little doubt that a two-thirds vote for conviction and removal from office could not be obtained in the Republican- controlled Senate, if disqualification is brought to a separate majority vote the picture would be far less clear in a Senate where the GOP has only a fifty-three to forty-seven vote majority and just four Republican defections could tip the scales of justice against the president.

I believe John Marquardt is simply ill informed.

Articles I and II of the Constitution deal with impeachment.

Article II, Section 4, mandates that, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article I, Section 3 provides, "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States...."

Upon conviction, the punishment shall result in removal from office. Upon conviction, it may further result in disqualification from federal office.

The vote on whether to add disqualification follows the required two-thirds vote to convict. The vote to add disqualification to the punishment of removal is then by a simple majority.

[John Marquardt, thread article] Rebecca Ballhouse, the White House reporter for the Wall Street Journal, has pointed out the anomaly that had the disqualification clause not been included, even if the president were to be convicted and removed from office, he could still run for reelection next year. A second possible and more nefarious scenario, however, would be the case of President Trump being acquitted on the Articles themselves by a two-thirds vote, and then by a simple majority vote, being disqualified from taking office even if he is reelected.

The Senate decides on the punishment, not the House. Whether the House includes a call for disqualification or not, the Constitution provides for, but does not mandate, disqualification. The Senate does not need the House's request or permission to mete out the punishment provided by the Constitution. However, it does need a prior two-thirds vote of conviction before considering whether to include disqualification in the punishment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4

- - - - - - - - - -

Article II, Section 4:

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

- - - - - - - - - -

3 Deschler’s Precedents, Ch 14, §§ 13-7 to 13-12 pp 3128-3333

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3.pdf

Footnotes converted to endnotes.

2128

Judgment as Debatable

§13.7 An order of judgment in an impeachment trial is not debatable.

On Apr. 17, 1936, the President pro tempore, Key Pittman, of Ne­vada, answered a parliamentary inquiry relating to debate on an order of judgment in the impeach­ment trial of Halsted Ritter:

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Senator from Arizona submits an order, which will be read.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Ordered further, That the respond­ent, Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern dis­trict of Florida, be forever disquali­fied from holding and enjoying any

- - - - - - - - - -

2129

office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

MR. [DANIEL O.] HASTINGS [of Dela­ware]: Mr. President, I understand that matter is subject to debate.

MR. [HENRY F.] ASHURST [of Ari­zona]: No, Mr. President. The yeas and nays are in order, if Senators wish, but it is not subject to debate.

MR. HASTINGS: Will the Chair state just why it is not subject to debate?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is of opinion that the rules governing impeachment proceedings re­quire that all orders or decisions be de­termined without debate, but the yeas and nays may be ordered.¹³

Divisibility of Order of Judg­ment

§13.8 An order of judgment on conviction in an impeach­ment trial is divisible where it contains provisions for re­moval from office and for disqualification of the re­spondent.

On Apr. 17, 1936, Senator Henry F. Ashurst, of Arizona, of­fered an order of judgment fol­lowing the conviction of Halsted Ritter on an article of impeach­ment. It was agreed, before the order was withdrawn, that it was divisible:¹⁴

The Senate hereby orders and de­crees and it is hereby adjudged that the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida, be, and he is hereby, removed from office, and that he be, and is hereby, forever dis­qualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States, and that the Secretary be di­rected to communicate to the President of the United States and to the House of Representatives the foregoing order and judgment of the Senate, and trans­mit a copy of same to each.

MR. [ROBERT M.] LA FOLLETTE [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. President, I ask for a division of the question.

MR. ASHURST: Mr. President, to di­vide the question is perfectly proper. Any Senator who desires that the order be divided is within his rights in thus asking that it be divided. The judgment of removal from office would ipso facto follow the vote of guilty.

MR. [WILLIAM E.] BORAH [of Idaho]: Mr. President, do I understand there is to be a division of the question?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have asked for a division of the question.

__________

In the trial of Judge Robert Archbald, a division was demanded on the order of judgment, which both removed and disqualified the re­spondent. 6 Cannon's Precedents §512. A division of the question was likewise demanded in the West Humphreys impeachment. See 3 Hinds' Precedents §2397. In the John Pickering impeachment, the Court of Impeachment voted on re­moval but did not consider disquali­fication. See 3 Hinds' Precedents §2341.

- - - - - - - - - -

2130

MR. [GEORGE W.] NORRIS [of Ne­braska]: Mr. President, it seems to me the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should submit two orders. One follows from what we have done. The other does not follow, but we ought to vote on it.

MR. ASHURST: I accept the sugges­tion. I believe the Senator from Ne­braska is correct. Therefore, I with­draw the order sent to the desk.

Vote on Removal Following Conviction

§13.9 On conviction of the re­spondent on an article of im­peachment, no vote is re­quired on judgment of re­moval, since removal follows automatically after convic­tion under section 4, article II, of the U.S. Constitution.

On Apr. 17, 1936, following the conviction by the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, of Halsted Ritter on Article VII of the articles of impeachment, President pro tempore Key Pitt­man, of Nevada, ruled that no vote was required on judgment of removal:¹⁵

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Senator from Arizona, having withdrawn the first order, submits another one, which the clerk will read.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That the respondent, Halsted L. Ritter, United States dis­trict judge for the southern district of Florida, be removed from office.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: Are the yeas and nays desired on the ques­tion of agreeing to the order?

MR. [HENRY F.] ASHURST [of Ari­zona]: The yeas and nays are not nec­essary.

MR. [HIRAM W.] JOHNSON [of Cali­fornia]: Mr. President, how, affirma­tively, do we adopt the order, unless it is put before the Senate, and unless the roll be called upon it or the Senate otherwise votes?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is of the opinion that the order would follow the final vote as a matter of course, and no vote is required.

MR. ASHURST: Mr. President, the vote of guilty, in and of itself, is suffi­cient without the order, under the Con­stitution, but to be precisely formal I have presented the order, in accord­ance with established precedent, and I ask for a vote on its adoption.

MR. [DANIEL O.] HASTINGS [of Dela­ware]: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

MR. ASHURST: I yield.

MR. HASTINGS: Just what is the lan­guage in the Constitution as to what necessarily follows conviction on an ar­ticle of impeachment?

MR. [GEORGE] MCGILL, [of Kansas]: It is found in section 4, article II, of the Constitution.

MR. HASTINGS: What is the language of the Constitution which makes re­moval from office necessary, and to fol­low as a matter of course?

MR. MCGILL: Mr. President——

MR. ASHURST: If the Senator from Kansas has the reference, I shall ask him to read it.

- - - - - - - - - -

2131

MR. MCGILL: Section 4 of article II of the constitution reads:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on im­peachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

MR. HASTINGS: I thank the Senator. Then may I suggest was not the Chair correct in the first instance? Does not the removal from office follow without any vote of the Senate?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: That was the opinion of the Chair.

MR. HASTINGS: I think the President pro tempore was correct.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will then direct that the order be entered.

MR. [GEORGE W.] NORRIS [of Ne­braska]: Mr. President, upon the action of the Senate why does not the Chair make the proper declaration without anything further?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Chair was about to do so. The Chair directs judgment to be entered in ac­cordance with the vote of the Senate, as follows:

JUDGMENT

The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida, upon seven several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representa­tives, and two-thirds of the Senators present having found him guilty of charges contained therein: It is therefore

Ordered and adjudged, That the said Halsted L. Ritter be, and he is hereby, removed from office.

Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure and ruling in the Ritter impeachment trial, for automatic removal on conviction of at least one article of impeachment, differs from the practice in three prior cases where the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment has voted to convict. In the John Pickering trial, the vote was taken, in the affirmative, on the question of re­moval, following the vote on the articles; the question of disquali­fication was apparently not considered.¹⁶ In the West Hum­phreys impeachment, following conviction on five articles of im­peachment, the Court of Impeachment proceeded to vote, under a division of the question, on re­moval and disqualification, both decided in the affirmative.¹⁷ And in the Robert Archbald impeach­ment, the Court of Impeachment voted first on removal and then on disqualification, under a division of the question. Both orders were voted in the affirmative.¹⁸

Vote Required for Disqualifica­tion

§ 13.10 The question of dis­qualification from holding an office of honor, trust, or prof­it under the United States, following conviction and

- - - - - - - - - -

2132

judgment of removal in an impeachment trial, requires only a majority vote of the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.

On Apr. 17, 1936, the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment in the trial of Halsted Ritter pro­ceeded to consider an order dis­qualifying the respondent from ever holding an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; the court had convicted the respondent and he had been ordered removed from office.

A parliamentary inquiry was propounded as to the vote re­quired on the question of disquali­fication:

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE:¹⁹ The Senator from Arizona submits an order, which will be read.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Ordered further, That the respond­ent, Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern dis­trict of Florida, be forever disquali­fied from holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States

MR. [F. RYAN] DUFFY [of Wisconsin]: A parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The Senator will state it.

MR. DUFFY: Upon this question is a majority vote sufficient to adopt the order, or must there be a two-thirds vote?

MR. [HENRY F.] ASHURST [of Ari­zona]: Mr. President, in reply to the in­quiry, I may say that in the Archbald case that very question arose. A Sen­ator asked that a question be divided, and on the second part of the order, which was identical with the order now proposed, the yeas and nays were or­dered, and the result was yeas 39, nays 35, so the order further disquali­fying respondent from holding any of­fice of honor, trust, or profit under the United States was entered. It requires only a majority vote.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: The question is on agreeing to the order submitted by the Senator from Arizona.²⁰

Parliamentarian's Note: In the impeachment trial of Robert Archbald, a division of the ques­tion was demanded on an order removing and disqualifying the respondent. Removal was agreed to by voice vote and disqualification was agreed to by the yeas and nays—yeas 39, nays 35.²¹

Filing of Separate Opinions

§ 13.11 The Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, may provide by order at the con­clusion of the trial for Sen­ators to file written opinions following the final vote.

On Apr. 16, 1936, the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment in the trial of Judge Halsted Rit-

- - - - - - - - - -

2133

ter adopted the following order at the conclusion of the trial:

Ordered, That upon the final vote in the pending impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter each Senator may, within 4 days after the final vote, file his opin­ion in writing, to be published in the printed proceedings in the case.(22)

House Informed of Judgment

§ 13.12 The Senate informs the President and the House of the order and judgment of the Senate in an impeach­ment trial.

On Apr. 20, 1936,(1) a message from the Senate was received in the House informing the House of the order and judgment in the im­peachment trial of Judge Halsted Ritter:

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate, by Mr. Horne, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate had ordered that the Secretary be directed to communicate to the President of the United States and to the House of Representatives the order and judgment of the Senate in the case of Halsted L. Ritter, and transmit a certified copy of same to each, as follows:

I, Edwin A. Halsey, Secretary of the Senate of the United States of America, do hereby certify that the hereto attached document is a true and correct copy of the order and judgment of the Senate, sitting for the trial of the impeachment of Hal- sted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida, entered in the said trial on April 17, 1936.

In testimony whereof, I hereunto subscribe my name and affix the seal of the Senate of the United States of America, this the 18th day of April, A. D. 1936.

EDWIN A. HALSEY,
Secretary of the Senate of the United States.

In the Senate of the United States of America, sitting for the trial of the impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida

JUDGMENT

APRIL 17, 1936.

The Senate having tried Halsted L. Ritter, United States district judge for the southern district of Florida, upon seven several articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representa­tives, and two-thirds of the Senators present having found him guilty of charges contained therein: It is therefore

Ordered and adjudged, That the said Halsted L. Ritter be, and he is hereby removed from office.

Attest:

EDWIN A. HALSEY,
Secretary.

____________

13. 80 CONG. REC. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. 80 CONG. REC. 5606, 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. 80 CONG. REC. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. 3 Hinds’ Precedents § 2341.
17. 3 Hinds’ Precedents § 2397.
18. 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 512.
19. Key Pittman (Nev.).
20. 80 CONG. REC. 5607, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
21. 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 512.
22. 80 CONG. REC. 5558, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.