LogFAQs > #928518437

pyresword posted...

Isn't the language in that letter a reference to the fact that the House hasn't formally voted to start an impeachment enquiry? Incidentally that's an argument I'm currently inclined to agree with, though I'm coming from a position of ignorance as far as how impeachment is supposed to work at a procedural level.

That's the argument they and the GOP are running with, yes.

However, legally I don't think it has a case.

I previously posted a NYT article explaining the different arguments made by both camps (tl;dr: Democrats say previous authorization votes were to secure investigative powers they didn't have at the time but that under the current House rules are already available so there's no need to seek them out.)

Constitutionally though is where I think it breaks apart completely.

here's what the constitution says on impeachment

Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

that's it

that's literally it

You Control+F "inquiry" you get nothing. It simply says the House has the sole power. I don't think SCOTUS has formally ruled on exactly what that "means" but it has generally been understood that the House makes all the rules. That's the basis behind when we say "the House could impeach you for committing a fashion crime if they had 218 votes for it" because they, and only they, decide wtf impeachment is.

The courts have generally decided that it isn't their business whatsoever to interfere here in Congress's actions and has deemed it a nonjustifiable political question AFAIK. Which is what I would think they'd do even if the GOP were to try to argue you need a full House vote to make it "for realz."

I mean, at the end of the day, the Constitution doesn't even mention inquiries at all sooo...
---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?