and the the constitution doesn’t provide for the Senate framework that’s been used, at least during Clinton’s removal trial. Rehnquist, was passive and adhered to the 51 Senator rule. Unsure what occurred during Johnson’s trial and how CJ Chase operated during it. The 2/— Andrew C Laufer, Esq (@lauferlaw) January 21, 2020
Constitution does not state that the Senate can overrule the CJ. My belief is that the FF intended to have all 3 branches represented equally during a removal trial. Representatives are members of the Grand Jury. POTUS can have reps attend and argue against impeachment. 4/— Andrew C Laufer, Esq (@lauferlaw) January 21, 2020
the FF intended the CJ to play a passive role or act as a figurehead in the removal of a POTUS. I believe his or her presence was meant to bestow an even hand of justice free from partisanship within the proceeding given its serious nature. X— Andrew C Laufer, Esq (@lauferlaw) January 21, 2020