I draw the line at the U.S. Constitution

OK, I think I get it. In 2016, a significant portion of the American electorate voted to roll a grenade into the Washington, D.C., establishment. They wanted to destroy the liberal consensus, broadly defined, that has exerted some sort of hegemony in the federal government, and the national consciousness, since (let’s say) the 1960s. They wanted to terminate coastal elitism, turn back the regulatory clock, undo almost everything Obama accomplished, seal the nation’s southern border, overrule the rule of PC, and turn their backs on established expertise, whether scientific or otherwise. And Trump was the man to do it. Fortunately for him, he had an opponent, in Mrs. Clinton, who symbolized many aspects of this kind of elite entitlement, even down to her implicit claim that it was time for a woman in the Oval Office.

Given this framing of the reasons for Trump’s election, it was not surprising that he, in turn, would leave a trail of broken norms behind him once he assumed the presidency. He ignored divesting himself of business interests or revealing his income tax returns. He continued to tweet in an undignified manner — for instance, damning and insulting his political adversaries. He attacked the mainstream press calling anything he didn’t like therein “fake news.” He more or less ignored the emoluments clause, sending even military personnel to his hospitality properties and (gasp!) inviting the G-7 to stay at his Florida resort for their next meeting. And on and on and on it went. He didn’t care. Sometimes he didn’t even seem to know or realize that he was violating longstanding rules or codes. When he released the summary notes of his fateful call with the new Ukrainian president he called it “perfect” and didn’t seem to understand that the “favor” he was requesting represented a violation of American election law.

All of which makes it a bit more problematic to impeach him and end his presidency. After all, this is what “the people” — or at least a sufficient portion thereof — actually wanted from their candidate. The American electorate had such egregious examples of norm busting in front of them as the November 2016 election approached — including his infamous comments about grabbing female private parts with impunity — that they had to have a pretty good idea of what they were going to get once he was in office. And that they did indeed get.

So, I get it. Yet, and for my part, I draw the line at the U.S. Constitution. For weeks, now, the citizens of Hong Kong have been protesting the Chinese government’s practice of removing defendants from that city for trial elsewhere. The protests have been bitter and enduring. We, as it happens, fought this same policy battle in the 18th century, when British King George III removed American defendants to Britain for trial. One of the many grievances listed in our Declaration of Independence specifically faulted the British monarch, “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.” In due course, the same objection became enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which guaranteed defendants the right to a trial “in the district” where the alleged crime occurred.

So, no, I don’t want to turn back the clock on the U.S. Constitution and the protections it offers. Mr. Trump, while his term or terms last can make all the bad policy choices he likes. He can distance us from our traditional friends and allies abroad; he can run the deficit up sky-high; he can tweet insults and profanities to his heart’s content. But he cannot mess with the U.S. Constitution. He swore he would not in his oath of office. And his swearing was one utterance — one single utterance — that cannot be allowed to be a lie on his part.

I know others may tend to be, for reasons I’ve described above, dismissive of and even forgiving toward Mr. Trump’s transgressions. But he has, in my opinion, by now accumulated too great a record of abuses of the powers of his office. I know, I know: a phone call is after all just a phone call. But the accumulating evidence, much of it offered by the very credible, and even admirable, witnesses of these past two weeks of House impeachment hearings, tells a story too clear to be mistaken. Trump exceeded his presidential warrant in delaying, for 55 days, congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine. Even worse, he did so in order to advance his political fortunes and not those of the United States. He sent his rogue team, as Dr. Hill put it, on a “domestic political errand” that was at cross-purposes with authentic American foreign policy.

He should be impeached and sent home to wherever he chooses to call home these days.