A president does not serve at the pleasure of Congress

To The Daily Sun,

In review of the answers to last week’s Question of the Week, I saw an almost 100% request to prolong this painful demonstration by Pelosi and company to get Trump at any cost.

Perhaps these writers could have profited by watching Alan Dershowitz’s lengthy explanation of what is actually an impeachable offense under the Constitution. Mr. Dershowitz is a longstanding professor teaching Constitutional Law at Harvard and a recognized expert on this document. It contains the only recognized offenses that warrant the impeachment of a standing President. They are “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Look it up!

None of the many offenses considered by the House to bring this travesty to the Senate rises anywhere near those definitions. It is not enough that you don’t like or actually hate a President’s demeanor, actions, talk, conduct, or any other personal opinion. Mr. Dershowitz pointed out that, if this could be used to bring impeachment proceedings, it would put this president and all following presidents to be subservient to and only serving at the pleasure of the Congress. This was exactly what the Framers of our Constitution were determined to avoid. It would put a president in the same position as the Prime Minister of Britain, requiring only their Parliament’s 50% “vote of no confidence” to remove that person from office and force a new election. Mr. Dershowitz’s main point was that this would be the most dangerous precedent possible and could affect the Office of President for many years to cone. He urged the Senate members to consider this long and seriously before reaching a conclusion.

For the Democrats to claim that this is not politically motivated is ludicrous and it just may come back to bite them, you know where.

Donald Lockwood

Laconia