At
the beginning of a U.S. Senate trial on whether to remove an impeached U.S.
president from office, the senators take an oath to be impartial jurists. The
impartiality is important because the senators are theoretically to listen to
the partial U.S. House prosecuting managers and the president’s defense
lawyers. Were the senators themselves partial, they would simply reflect the
two sides that make their respective cases. In the trial of Donald Trump, I
submit that few if any senators had any intention of being impartial and thus
as serving as a jurist rather than as an extension of the prosecutors or
defense. In effect, the verdict is left to whichever political party controls
the Senate. I contend that having the Senate try presidents is problematic due
to conflicts of interest.
The full essay is at "A Constitutional Conflict of Interest."
