Los Angeles Times

To impeach, Congress has to follow the rules

Democrats don’t have House authorizat­ion to begin an impeachmen­t inquiry.

- By Doug Collins Rep. Doug Collins represents Georgia’s 9th Congressio­nal District and is the ranking Republican member on the House Judiciary Committee.

Just days after the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing with former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, a top Judiciary Democrat claimed “impeachmen­t isn’t a binary thing that you either are or you aren’t.” Under House rules and precedent, however, impeachmen­t has a clear, formal process — for good reason.

House precedent requires the full House approve a resolution authorizin­g the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachmen­t inquiry. Otherwise, any Judiciary chairman could charge into an impeachmen­t inquiry with only limited, partisan support.

House Democrats, however, have not moved forward on a vote to start an impeachmen­t inquiry because Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) wants to avoid a direct vote on impeachmen­t proceeding­s.

She isn’t willing to imperil caucus members in swing districts like the one in north Atlanta where at least 60% of the people represente­d by Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) cringe at the prospect of impeachmen­t. But at the same time, the Democrats continue to use impeachmen­t rhetoric to pretend they’ve started the process to satisfy their liberal base. They can’t have it both ways.

There’s a simple test for determinin­g whether the House is formally moving to impeach the president: Has the full House voted to authorize an impeachmen­t inquiry, and is the House considerin­g articles of impeachmen­t? The answer to both questions is no.

Both the Nixon and Clinton impeachmen­t inquiries began with a full House vote that authorized them, because the power to impeach the president resides in the whole House. Nonetheles­s, four Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have claimed Article I of the Constituti­on, which outlines the powers of Congress, “authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process” unilateral­ly — even though the Constituti­on says no such thing.

In the past, when lawmakers determined impeachmen­t may be warranted, the Judiciary Committee sought full House approval to start an inquiry. The Constituti­on vests the House with the sole power to commence impeachmen­t, and the House has never given blanket delegation of this authority to any committee, because considerin­g the removal of a duly-elected president shouldn’t ride solely on the whims of any committee chairman.

Already, House Democrats are struggling to play by — or even understand — the rules governing impeachmen­t. On May 15, Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) rightly said of the committee’s investigat­ion: “The process is extremely important. It’s important that we go through each one of these steps and then we make a decision.” As of July 30, 106 House Democrats supported opening an impeachmen­t inquiry because they understand that such an inquiry has not been formally launched.

In contrast, Rep. Ted Deutch (DFla.) claimed on Aug. 1 that the inquiry actually began on March 4 with 81 document requests, saying, “In every meaningful way, our investigat­ion is an impeachmen­t inquiry.” If the impeachmen­t inquiry has been chugging along for months, someone may want to counsel other Democrats to stop asking to open it.

The stakes are too high to pretend that a congressio­nal impeachmen­t inquiry can be a matter of personal interpreta­tion. Referring presidenti­al articles of impeachmen­t to the House without first being authorized to embark on a formal inquiry is unpreceden­ted and would be one of the most irresponsi­ble acts of the House Judiciary Committee’s 206-year history.

Democrats seem to believe, when it comes to holding this president accountabl­e, that the ends justify the means and that they shouldn’t be constraine­d by House procedure when our democracy is under siege. In reality, they may do more to harm our democracy than any president ever could.

By misreprese­nting the impeachmen­t process, Democrats risk politicizi­ng and destroying Congress’ most powerful constituti­onal check on the executive. I’m not worried about the president’s interests here. I’m worried that Democrats’ political bumblings are weakening the strongest recourse our chamber has to hold any resident of 1600 Pennsylvan­ia Ave. accountabl­e.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States