Senate Violates Constitution by Refusing to Hear Mayorkas Impeachment

When Articles of Impeachment were approved and sent by the United States House of Representatives to the United States Senate regarding Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, most people did not believe the impeachment would result in a conviction. Some worried that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, would simply say “no” to it, and a trial would never get off the ground. Someone asked me this morning if Schumer could pull such a stunt, and I responded, “The Senate is obligated to hold a hearing.” After all, in Article I, Section 3, when the Constitution addresses the U.S. Senate’s responsibility to try all impeachments, the word “shall” is used, meaning that their task to try all impeachments is mandatory. With Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas charged with maladministration of his office by failing to execute the laws of the Union, the House of Representatives had every right, and duty, to impeach him; and the U.S. Senate had every duty and responsibility to hold the hearing.

The United States Senate disagreed with the whole thing, the political ideology of a slim majority believed the whole thing had no business even existing in the first place, and with a vote of 51-49 they voted down even entertaining a hearing regarding the impeachment, treating it as a waste of their time, and Schumer called it “unconstitutional.”

According to Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Immigration Laws are being violated by a massive amount of people who are crossing the border without much of any obstacle put up by the current regime in the White House. The Biden Administration refuses to execute the laws on the books regarding immigration, and the executive department tasked with carrying out those laws is the Department of Homeland Security. But, rather than going after President Joe Biden for violating Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution for failing to carry out immigration laws, the House of Representatives first went after the officer tasked with the duty: Alejandro Mayorkas.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer argued otherwise.

Considering the impeachment merely a “political show” by the Republicans, Schumer accused the GOP Representatives from the House of not being prepared and offering a frivolous and political waste of time. “Impeachment should never be used,” he said, “to settle policy disagreements…it would set a disastrous precedent for Congress. Could throw our system of checks and balances into cycles of chaos. Anytime the House wanted to shut the Senate down they would just send another impeachment resolution, and would create frivolous impeachment trial after impeachment trial. 

So, I felt it really important, with dangerous precedent, was not the one the Republicans were talking about, but the one of letting impeachment take the place of policy disagreements. 

Cabinet person after cabinet person could be subject to this. We cannot have that happen. And I felt that is what the Senate had to do to step up to its responsibilities. We are supposed to have debates on the issues — not impeachments on the issues. We are not supposed to say that if you disagree with someone on policy then that’s suddenly a high crime and misdemeanor. That would degrade government. It’s clear that Republicans aren’t interested in working with Democrats to fix the problems at the border. In fact, if they wanted to pass the bipartisan proposal we put together and have a debate on it — about policy — fine. If Republicans, instead of spending time on this meritless impeachment, worked with Democrats on border reform then we might have actually gotten something done. If House Republicans want to have a serious debate on border security, we welcome it. Everyone knows what is happening at the border is terrible, and needs fixing. That’s not a secret. The President knows it. Secretary Mayorkas knows it. Both parties in Congress know it. That’s exactly why we had a bi-partisan bill to fix it…strongest security bill in thirty years…Donald Trump told his Republican allies in Congress to kill this border bill before we could even debate it…”

Schumer is correct that impeachment should not be used for policy disagreement. He claimed the accusation against Mayorkas does not amount to what would be considered high crimes and misdemeanors. On that, he was incorrect.

Support Canada Free Press

The problem is the Democrats do not believe the President, and therefore his cabinet officers, are required to execute the laws of the Union regardless of if they agree with the laws. Good immigration laws are on the books. Donald Trump executed those laws faithfully, and during his tenure as President of the United States the border was not a major issue, and the number of illegal aliens crossing the border was miniscule compared to the numbers we are seeing today. However, the Democrats act as if they are surprised that the border is a problem, and act as if there are no immigration laws on the books that can resolve the issue. They want new legislation, filled with provisions they are more in agreement with, and earmarks for their greedy friends and allies. No new legislation is needed. Donald Trump proved during his presidency that the laws on the books are sufficient for securing the border, and properly processing immigrants. If any changes are needed, they are not needed when it comes to securing the border, but simply in streamlining the process for those who choose to legally go through the immigration protocols already in place.

In short, this is not a policy disagreement. The impeachment by the House of Representatives was not launched because the Republicans in the House suffer from disagreeing with policy. Mayorkas and the Democrats are refusing the execute immigration law that is already in place, and that is a violation of the United States Constitution. The House having the authority to impeach is a part of the system of checks and balances, and the Senate is required by the Constitution to take this impeachment seriously because President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas are both violating the Constitution by not carrying out existing immigration law that the Trump administration was successfully carrying out. If violating the Constitution does not qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor, what does? Is not violating the Supreme Law of the Land a severe case of maladministration of office, and is not maladministration of office by refusing to carry out provisions in the Constitution worthy of impeachment?

The dangerous precedent being set was not by the House of Representatives, but by Schumer and his allies in the U.S. Senate. Their refusal to take Articles of Impeachment seriously is a violation of the Constitution, and sets a dangerous precedent of the Senate refusing to carry out its duty of holding an impeachment hearing when one is warranted. That would be like the judges of this country refusing to preside over criminal trials, despite the evidence, and despite the fact that a case has been brought to the courts; simply saying, “nah, we don’t want to hold the hearing because we are not going to hold trials because of a policy disagreement over whether or not these people are breaking the law. Let the criminals keep doing whatever they are doing, we have more important things to do.”

Debate is a wonderful thing, but this is not about simply disagreeing on policy. Laws are on the books. Laws are being broken. The administration in place refuses to carry out the law, apprehend the lawbreakers, and deport the lawbreakers as the law requires. New legislation is not needed to secure the border. The legislation needed is already there, and the Democrats simply refuse to carry out the letter of the law, and then claim the crisis is not their fault but the fault of the former President who actually carried out existing law and did not have this kind of crisis during his presidency. The move by Schumer and the Democrats was not one to save the country from frivolous political stunts, but to create their own political frivolous stunt by demanding that our border remain open and to stand in open defiance of the law and the security of this country. A dangerous precedent has indeed been created, but because it’s the Democrats who refuse to work with the GOP, and because it’s the Democrats who refuse to fix the problems at the border by simply following law that already exists.

As always, the idiocy is a matter of projection. The Democrats, once again, have accused their opposition of being guilty of the very thing that they are guilty of. It is the Democrats who have degraded government and the rule of law. It is the Democrats who are not interested in working with their opposition to fix the problems at the border. They want the pork and dangerous reduction of security in the recent bill to reign supreme over law and order which already exists on the pages of federal law and were being carried out by Trump. The immigration problem didn’t just suddenly begin out of some sudden event in the world. A crisis did not suddenly appear out of thin air when Biden took office. The crisis began when Biden reversed all of Trump’s executive orders that were in place to secure the border, and apprehend those who broke the law when they tried to illegally enter the United States. The Democrats have no interest in having a serious debate on immigration because they want open borders because they know that the people illegally crossing the border vote Democrat when they fraudulently cast votes on election day. I guarantee you, if the illegal aliens voted Republican, the border would be sealed up tighter than when Trump was President; the Democrats would make sure of it.

But, because of policy disagreement, the Democrats, with Schumer in the lead, are violating the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, by refusing to hold an impeachment hearing that they are constitutionally obligated to hold. Schumer and every one of the Senators who voted against holding the impeachment trial against Secretary Mayorkas should be removed from office for violating their oath to the Constitution of the United States, and made ineligible to ever hold office again. The actions of Schumer and the Democrats amount to nothing less than insurrection against the United States Constitution for it is they, by refusing to secure a border being crossed by persons from countries who are enemies of the United States, who are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy; the definition of treason in Article III of the United States Constitution.

VIEW Comments