Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Are they in a better position in terms of House inquiries? This is where I get confused. Apparently the Senate has the sole right to conduct Impeachment trials. Does the House have latitude to hold Impeachment hearings on their own?
The House institutes impeachment proceedings. They are the equivalent of a grand jury deciding whether to indict. In exercise of that power, their investigatory authority is at its zenith. This is why questions of whether something they want is relevant to their general oversight authority (which is implied by the constitution) are more muddled.
Their impeachment power, on the other hand, is unquestionable as it is specifically laid out in the constitution. So courts should (and would) defer to the exercise of that power. If they decide, after their investigations, to impeach, then it’s like a grand jury issuing an indictment to be tried in court. And so whatever the outcome in the Senate, the President (or whomever) has been impeached. That’s why it’s still appropriate to say Bill Clinton was impeached.
The impeachment is then tried in the Senate, which votes to convict or acquit. By the time it goes over to the Senate, all the evidence has been investigated and gathered. It’s just a matter of the House and the President presenting evidence and argument and the Senate (as a petit jury) taking its vote.
Compare Article I, Section 2, [5] with Article I, Section 3, [6].
