I was always perplexed when I read in the Constitution how the House "shall have sole Power of Impeachment," and then to read just a little bit later that, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
I came to understand, though, that the House is more of the investigative body, while the Senate is the body where the actual trial is to take place.
Today, I believe I came to understand the importance of the words, "sole Power." What could it mean, that each has "sole power"? Sole means independent. If you have sole power, you are independent of other entities.
Strung throughout the Constitution are checks and balances. I am somewhat certain, then, of what the Founding Fathers were seeking to do when they used the word, "sole." And, what they intended, is not what is happening.
The House should be independent of the Senate, and the Senate independent of the House. The House is to be left do its thing without the Senate sticking its head in, and then the Senate to do its thing, without the House sticking its head in.
I admire Speaker Pelosi for holding back the Articles of Impeachment in order to pressure the Senate to allow witnesses. Should any trial in America ever not have witnesses? That is not right. It is corrupt. It goes against everything truth and justice stands for.
Yes, it is un-American, and violates the Constitution.
But, if the founders said the House and Senate are each to be "sole" in their duties, Nancy should surely leave the Senate to do its own thing. She is out of line in trying to tell the Senate how to run its trial. She is surely right, if she is suggesting what the Senate plans is unconstitutional, for the Sixth Amendment says trials shall be by impartial juries and shall have witnesses who confront the accused.
But Pelosi -- unwittingly and unintentionally -- is also breaking the Constitution. In a Constitution that has checks and balances, she should not be telling the Senate what to do.
I think your definition of "sole" makes sense
ReplyDelete