It is at least possible that establishment media and others did their best to manipulate the nation into nominating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It is also at least possible that establishment media and others have been, and are, doing their best to manipulate the nation into demanding impeachment of President Trump. However, the rest of this essay does not depend on whether either of those things actually occurred.

At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination.¹

Franklin suggested that the Constitution provide a method of removal other than assassination. Apparently, the Framers agreed. The first (and only) Constitutional convention fashioned a process to which we tend to refer, albeit not entirely accurately, as "impeachment." The House votes on whether or not to refer allegations against the President (or other official) to the Senate for trial. If the House votes "yes," the President (or other official) has been impeached. The Senate then tries the matter.

After the Senate trial ends, the Senate then votes on whether or not the President should be removed. If the Senate votes to remove the President, the Vice President becomes President. When the Constitutional Convention fashioned the removal process, the Vice President would have been elected by the people. Now, however, the Vice President is merely the person whom a Presidential nominee chose as a running mate.

The process for removal (or not) is governed legally by Constitutional provisions² whose meaning has not been hammered out by centuries of judicial interpretations--and likely never will be. Implicitly, political considerations play a role, as they do with everything else. The terms of the Constitution detailed below in footnote 2 leave room for considerable Congressional kabuki around impeachment and conviction votes,³ if our elected(?) "representatives" in Congress were both so inclined and sufficiently brave. As detailed in footnote 3, below, conceivably, a vote by a minority of members of the House could suffice to impeach; and the vote of as few as thirty-four Senators could suffice to remove a President.

Recent Presidential elections have entailed considerable time and effort and billions of dollars of disclosed and "dark" money. Candidates for President now invest years in quietly preparing to run, then having a ghost writer prepare a book that vindicates the candidate, then doing a self-serving book tour, then lining up donors and then forming an exploratory committee; and, finally, admitting they are running and running openly in a primary campaign. The winners of the primary campaigns then campaign before the general election. During a lot of this period, we hoi polloi perseverate, volunteer, donate, and vote in primaries and general elections, expending a lot of time, money and physical and emotional energy. Meanwhile, everyone is diverting attention from the actual business of the nation.

The Framers of our Constitution were brilliant, but reluctant to empower anyone but plutocrats.⁴ Today, however, we pride ourselves upon widespread and egalitarian suffrage.⁵ For practical purposes, today, the popular vote of the people of a state determines how electors cast that state's electoral votes. Even rare "faithless" electors have never swung the electoral vote for President,⁶ However, in part because the Framers made amending the Constitution that they fashioned so difficult,⁷ our system still reflects the contempt of the Framers for us "rabble" (or we "rabble" would not be so desperate now for hope of change).

Do we, today, really want removal by as few as thirty-four Senators, cosy with lobbyists, changing the outcome of all the time, money and effort and all those tens of millions of primary and general election votes entailed in electing a President? Because, centuries ago, the Framers were elitist plutocrats, should so few people still have the final word on who shall wield executive power over hundreds of millions of Americans and be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world? (BTW, nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from putting the matter to an advisory vote by the people, but don't hold your breath.)

Imagine the potential for various kinds abuse if we take impeachment lightly! For just one thing, what kinds of running mates might Presidential nominees choose as "insurance" against their own impeachment? Would we have wanted a Dan Quayle succeeding the secretive President Roosevelt during World War II or President Kennedy during a period of unprecedented domestic upheaval, combined with the Vietnam "Era?"

Potential for even worse kinds of abuse exists, even if neither of the two Presidential nominees are complicit with the would-be abusers, but are open to "advice" as to their running mates. (All candidates for what may be the most complex job in the world should be open to advice, but one hopes the advisors will not have an agenda inimical to the majority of Americans.) If, however, the nominees are intentionally complicit with would-be abusers about removal and succession, "Katy, bar the door!"⁸

(The second and last part of my thoughts about impeachment is, I hope, almost ready to post.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States, citing, Chafetz, Josh, Impeachment and Assassination 95. Minnesota Law Review (2010). See also, Madison Debates http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp (Great website, btw.) Despite the concern of the droll and sagacious Franklin, some of our best Presidents were assassinated, while some of the most "obnoxious" left office alive.

² Provisions of the Constitution of the United States governing impeachment of a President are: Article I, Section 2, last paragraph; Article I, Section 3, paragraphs 6 and 7; Article I, Section 5, paragraphs 1 and 2; Article II, Section 1, paragraph 6; Article II, Section 4; and Article III, Section 2, paragraph 3. (The cornell.edu website is great for looking up the Constitution and federal statutes.)

According to the Constitution, neither House of Congress may conduct any kind of business (beside adjournment) unless a majority of its members is present or "deemed" present. Assuming no relevant Constitutional amendments, a quorum of the House is two hundred eighteen members; and, for the Senate, assuming fifty states, fifty-one Senators. Impeachment requires only a vote of the House; and removal (or not) requires only the vote of the Senate.

³ The Constitution implicitly allows the possibilities of playing with strategic absences in the House and the Senate and/or with the size of the vote required in the House; and those things leave much room for kabuki. The Constitution says nothing about the size/proportion of the House vote required to impeach. As best I can tell, this means that the House could decide that, with a quorum present, impeachment will require a vote of much fewer or much greater than 218 members. However, that decision would itself would require presence of a quorum and the vote of a majority of Representatives present.

The Constitution expressly requires the vote of two-thirds vote of the Senators present. With one hundred Senators and a quorum requirement of fifty-one, two-thirds of those present could amount to as few as thirty-four Senators.

⁴ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp (secret notes of the Constitutional convention) Among other things, the Framers wrote a Constitution that allowed only about 6% of the total population of their time to vote for federal officers. Even that 6% could vote only for members of the House, which the Framers purposefully made weaker than the Senate. By the election of 1920, every race and gender of U.S. citizens was able to vote for President. However, the poorest, those who could not afford to pay poll taxes, were still waiting for a right to vote in some states until 1964.

⁵ Suffrage not being synonymous with democracy http://caucus99percent.com/content/sleights-santa-and-republic

⁶ Back when we elected Vice Presidents separately, Alabama electors did swing a vote for Vice President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector As a practical matter, these days, electors who plan to change the outcome of a Presidential election would be well-advised to disappear, immediately and permanently.

⁷ http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution

⁸ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Douglas

___________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________-