Can anyone either clarify or direct me to clarification why in the only instances in history of impeachment of an official who's no longer in office - as discussed in Is Trump's Senate Trial Constitutional? There Is Precedent, From 145 Years Ago (and other articles I've read) - the Senate has passed judgement on the constitutionality of the impeachment on its own, rather than taking it to the Supreme Court...the constitutionally appointed arbiter of constitutionality?

What enables such a self-serving end run around the separation of powers that's inherent in and so important to our system to govern the situation, i.e. why wasn't Paul v. Schumer taken to the Court for settlment one way or the other for once and for all?

It would either force the individual senators to take a stand on the grounds for impeachment or get them off the hook altogether.

More: Doesn't allowing the Senate to pass judgement on the constitutionality of its own action set a dangerous precedent?

Last edited by artie505; 02/01/21 02:39 PM. Reason: More
The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire