Stop Saying This Impeachment Is Unconstitutional - It's a Trap

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., center, and Democratic members of that panel, speak to reporters about this week's testimony from former special counsel Robert Mueller and their plan to continue to investigate President Donald Trump and Russia's interference in the election, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, July 26, 2019. Nadler says they are seeking enforcement of a subpoena against former White House counsel Donald McGahn, a key Mueller witness. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Maxine “Word Salad” Waters (D – Kommifornistan) said a while back:

Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and we define that.

Amazingly, Word Salad is right (the first and only instance on record of this). If the House wants to impeach (“accuse“) the president for eating hamburgers or blowing his nose, they jolly well can. It’s entirely constitutional. They can accuse him of anything they want. And if the Senate wants to convict him for burgers and nose-blowing, they can do that, too.

The mechanism of impeachment is a glaring flaw in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers did not reinforce, because they didn’t think like corrupt opportunists (political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville spotted this flaw back in 1835 in his landmark work Democracy in America). The Founders presumed lawmakers would only reach for impeachment in a legitimate catastrophe,  valuing the integrity of the government and national safety over scoring political points.

Naive? Yeah, a little. Madison and Jefferson never saw the likes of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi coming. They would have been dumbfounded by Word Salad–a four-time winner of Most Corrupt Member of Congress.

Now you may say: “Horton Highnose at Harvard Law School says that the impeachment is unconstitutional, so it is!”

No. No it’s not. Ivory tower bloviators do NOT have the power to tell Congress what the Constitution means, even if the bloviators happen to be conservative and/or originalist. They can have their opinions, but in the end, they pound sand along with the rest of us. Not even the Supreme Court tells Congress what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means. The House gets to define terms and make up the rules as they go along on this one.

It’s crazy, but it’s true. If we don’t like it, we can vote the cretins out.

So go ahead and call the impeachment a piece of political theater, a government suicide, an outrage against common sense, an administrative assassination, a devolution into legislative tyranny, a thinly-veiled coup, an adventure in the Land of Make-Believe, an abuse of American governance tradition, a crock of … whatever else comes to mind.

But don’t call it unconstitutional. That’s a trap, an unforced error.

As soon as you say “unconstitutional,” Democrats get to do their very favorite thing: argue over the meaning of commonly-used words (e.g. “man,” “woman,” “normal,” “moral,” “collusion,” “shall not,” “infringed,” “violence,” “racist,” etc.)

Arguing over words is the Left’s time-honored diversionary tactic. Democrats can trot out scores of idiot-savant law professors with impressive credentials to equivocate over “high crimes and misdemeanors” for as long as people care to listen, pulling the whole mess deeper and deeper into the weeds.

And as long as the country remains caught up talking about the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” nobody is saying (or hearing):

The U.S. presidency as we have known it is over. We are fast falling into a tyranny of the legislature, exactly as Tocqueville predicted. Crude majority rule and steamrolling of minorities without checks or balances appears to be our future, if something isn’t done, and soon. The Electoral College is in danger of being wiped out. Liberal urban centers will seize control of Congress, and the Executive will become a figurehead, like the Queen of England, living in terror of upsetting the Legislative and being deposed.

So yeah … jawboning is great. Just keep arguing over the meaning of “high crime” until the next Democrat president (or Mitt Romney) gets elected. He’ll finish giving away the store to Congress. Then we can get down to transforming the United States into a Canada-Sweden hybrid, governed by experts and frog-marched into utopia.

The Founders had no idea the amoral nation we would become, and they goofed on the haziness of impeachment. It happens. Don’t waste your breath arguing over questions of impeachment constitutionality. It’s an angels-on-pinheads discussion that fuels the legitimacy of the Left’s deconstructive efforts against traditional government and hands the microphone to the legal priesthood, 9 out of 10 of whom are Democrats.

If you think the whole impeachment charade is an outrage and massively wrong, just say that. Don’t say “unconstitutional.”