Simone Lawson
Former US President Donald Trump was impeached twice, a record for a US President. The first impeachment trial was characterized by deep partisan divides and complicated disagreements over questions of law and fact, including presidential motive. The second impeachment was a result of Trump's involvement in the Capitol Riots on January 6, 2021. While the former President's attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defense to the impeachment charge, asserting that free speech protections apply and limit the conduct that can be considered an impeachable offense, the House managers disagreed, arguing that the First Amendment does not apply in an impeachment proceeding. Trump was also accused of violating the 14th Amendment by challenging the right of anyone of color to be a US citizen, and the 5th Amendment by using the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process of law.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| First Amendment | Free speech protections |
| Fourth Amendment | Right to privacy |
| Fifth Amendment | Due process of law |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Citizenship rights and equal protection under the law |
| Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 | Disqualification from holding future office for participating in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution |
| Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4 | Removal from office |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- First Amendment: Trump's attorneys invoked free speech protections
- Fourth Amendment: Right to privacy violated by unreasonable searches
- Fourteenth Amendment: Challenging citizenship rights of people of colour
- Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Trump's removal under Section 4 was considered
- Criminal law: Debate over whether impeachment requires evidence of a crime
First Amendment: Trump's attorneys invoked free speech protections
During the impeachment trial of former US President Donald Trump, his attorneys invoked the First Amendment as a defence, asserting that free speech protections apply and limit the conduct that can be considered an impeachable offence. They argued that the former President's political statements at a rally constituted "core free speech under the First Amendment" and thus could not be considered grounds for impeachment.
The House managers disagreed, arguing that the First Amendment does not apply in an impeachment proceeding. They contended that impeachment seeks to protect the nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust, rather than punish unlawful speech.
Trump's attorneys, including John Lauro, have continued to assert the "free speech" defence in media interviews. Lauro stated that the administration had “criminalized the free speech and advocacy of a prior administration" and that Trump, like every American, had the right to speak publicly about the election.
However, legal experts note that Trump's speech is not constitutionally protected if he engaged in a criminal conspiracy, as alleged in the indictment. They emphasize that while politicians can legally make false claims or lie to the public, the First Amendment does not shield speech in furtherance of a crime.
The debate over the applicability of the First Amendment in Trump's impeachment trial highlights the complex nature of free speech protections and their interpretation in the context of political speech and criminal conspiracy allegations.
Repealing Prohibition: The 21st Amendment's Historic Reversal
You may want to see also
Fourth Amendment: Right to privacy violated by unreasonable searches
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to privacy by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that:
> [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those deemed unreasonable under the law. To determine reasonableness, courts balance the individual's right to privacy against the government's interests in promoting public safety. For example, in the case of State v. Helmbright, the Ohio court held that a warrantless search of a probationer's residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer had "reasonable grounds" to believe the probationer had failed to comply with the terms of their probation.
Warrantless searches and seizures are generally presumed unreasonable unless they fall within certain exceptions. These include situations where an officer has asked for and received consent to search, where the search is incident to a lawful arrest, or where there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances calling for immediate action, such as imminent danger or destruction of evidence.
In the digital age, the Fourth Amendment has been applied to protect individuals from unreasonable searches of their electronic devices and digital information. For instance, in the case of David Riley, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of an arrestee's smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment, recognising that cell phones contain vast amounts of personal data that warrant robust protection from government intrusion.
The US Constitution's Latest Ratification Amendments
You may want to see also
Fourteenth Amendment: Challenging citizenship rights of people of colour
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. It was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The text of the amendment is clear: "all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside."
Despite this, former US President Donald Trump challenged the right of anyone of colour to be a US citizen. Trump lost a "birthright citizenship" challenge in the lower courts, and his administration appealed to the Supreme Court. This action directly contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment and threatened the citizenship rights of people of colour in the United States.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also states that a person who participated in insurrection after having taken an oath to support the Constitution is disqualified from holding future office unless permitted by Congress. Following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, some called for Trump's removal from office under this section of the amendment. If this had occurred, Mike Pence would have become the 46th President of the United States, and Trump would have been the shortest-serving president in history.
In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, members of Congress, members of Trump's cabinet, political commentators, and legal scholars also discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. This amendment allows for the removal of a President who is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. However, some, like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, argued against invoking the 25th Amendment, stating that it was poorly drafted and could lead to "two competing presidencies."
The Constitution's Evolution: Amendments and Their Authors
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Trump's removal under Section 4 was considered
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses presidential disability and succession. Section 4 of the Amendment outlines the process for removing a President who is unable to fulfil their duties. This section has been considered in relation to former President Donald Trump, particularly during the final days of his presidency.
Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment allows for the removal of a President who is unable to discharge their powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. If the President is deemed unable to fulfil their duties, the Vice President becomes the Acting President and assumes the powers and duties of the presidency. This transfer of power can occur in two ways: firstly, the President can voluntarily relinquish their powers by transmitting a written declaration of their inability to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Secondly, if the President does not voluntarily transfer power, the Vice President, along with a majority of the principal officers of the executive department, can transmit a written declaration of the President's inability to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. Congress then has twenty-one days to decide the issue, and a two-thirds vote in both Houses is required to determine that the President is unable to discharge their duties.
In the case of former President Trump, there were discussions about invoking Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment during his presidency, particularly towards the end of his term. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, asked Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment in early 2021 as an alternative to impeaching Trump for a second time. However, Pence refused to do so. Additionally, in the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol attack, there were further calls for Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, but these calls were not heeded.
It is important to note that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's Section 4 was not ultimately invoked during Trump's presidency. While there were considerations and discussions, the amendment's removal process was not initiated or executed. Trump completed his term and was not removed from office through the Twenty-Fifth Amendment or impeachment.
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment has been considered and invoked by other Presidents as well. For example, President Ronald Reagan contemplated invoking Section 3 before undergoing surgery but ultimately chose not to. Similarly, Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump also contemplated invoking Section 3 at various times but did not do so.
Constitution Amendments: 1792, the Birth of Voting Rights
You may want to see also
Criminal law: Debate over whether impeachment requires evidence of a crime
The impeachment of former US President Donald Trump has brought to light the debate surrounding the relationship between impeachment and criminal law. The US Constitution states that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment", with the Senate having the "sole Power to try all Impeachments". The Constitution further outlines that impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", without defining "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
This ambiguity has led to differing interpretations during impeachment trials, including that of former President Trump. The House managers during Trump's impeachment asserted that, consistent with past impeachment practice, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" need not be indictable criminal offenses. They argued that impeachment does not seek to punish unlawful speech but to protect the nation from a President who violated his oath of office and abused the public trust.
On the other hand, Trump's attorneys asserted that an impeachable offense must be a violation of established law and that the articles of impeachment failed to allege any crime or legal violation. They invoked the First Amendment, claiming that the President's political statements at the rally were protected under free speech and thus not impeachable.
The debate centres around the interpretation of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and whether it requires evidence of a criminal act or legal violation. While some argue that a subjective probing of motives cannot be the basis for impeachment, others contend that motives are crucial and that there must be sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable juror or senator. The acquittal in Trump's case did not provide a clear resolution to these conflicting positions, and the debate over the link between illegal acts and impeachable acts continues to divide legal scholars and politicians.
The Double Jeopardy Clause: Protecting Defendants from Repeat Trials
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Impeachment is a unique political process that acts as a check on the Executive and Judicial Branches. It is a tool used to hold government officials accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power.
Trump was accused of violating the First Amendment by kidnapping peaceful protesters and threatening lawmakers. He also violated the Fourth Amendment by punishing law firms defending his opponents without probable cause or search warrants. Additionally, he challenged birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and used the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to deport people without due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Trump was impeached for ordering, aiding, and abetting the invasion, insurrection, and coup attempt at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. This was the second time he had been impeached.
According to the US Constitution, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, while the Senate has the sole responsibility to try impeachments.
The sanctions for an impeached individual are limited to removal from office and potentially being barred from holding future office. However, impeachment does not preclude criminal liability.
