Bravo, Alan Dershowitz: Intent vs. True Meaning

Alan Dershowitz gave the best argument either for or against impeachment. Since I believe this is a Constitutional question, Dershowtiz answered the question properly using an originalism or the true meaning of the impeachment clause in the Constitution. On the other hand, any constitutional arguments put forth by Democrats were about the intent of some Founders. There is a difference. If I intend to do something, it doesn't mean that I did it or did something different. Some founders intended to place maladministration in the Constitution which would make abuse of power an impeachable offense, but that is not the meaning behind the clause and those words were never added because it would cripple the executive branch. The words in the clause for impeachable offensives are treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Some believe that maladministration may be found in misdemeanors, but that is not true. According to Blackstone, high crimes and misdemeanors were synonymous. Thus, for the president to be impeached he must have committed a crime.

Furthermore, Democrats have argued that Trump's "intent" was for personal gain. First, we do not know what anyone's intent is. And second, even if that is true, every president has abused power for personal gain, no exceptions. When Obama lied about the events in Benghazi two month before an election it was for personal gain. Is this an abuse of power, of course, but lying and being dishonest is not a crime or an impeachable offense (perjury may be different). When Obama made the Iran treaty (without Senate approval) and gave them billions in cash, it was for personal gain. All presidents worry about public opinion and their legacy more so then they do about doing things the right way. Obama violated the Constitution in his actions and the right of thousands of persons that were the victims of Iran terrorism that was paid for by the Treaty. This was an abuse of power and should have been decided by SCOTUS, but I would not say it is impeachable.

Imagine if we were all put in prison for what we intended and not our actual actions. Not a single person will avoid jail time. This is dangerous and every president will be subject to impeachment. In other words, impeaching Trump will eliminate checks and balances and protections placed in the Constitution. Some may want to refer to the case Taylor v. United States in my book Defending Freedom of Contract to see the dangers of using intend over true meaning. Following intent allows opinions, biases, and balancing test in constitutional interpretations and will ensure not every citizen will be treated equally. Following the true meaning is the only way to ensure every is treated equally.