Three House Dems Tapped For Dann Impeachment Exploration
Submitted by dpotts on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 7:55pm.
House Democratic leader Joyce Beatty (D-Columbus) selected three attorneys from the House Democrats earlier today to lead the Democratic Caucus' exploration of impeaching Marc Dann.
The three members selected were Jennifer Garrison (D-Marietta), Dan Dodd (D-Hebron) and Mark Okey (D-Carrollton).
I doubt the GOP will let them...
Submitted by dpotts on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 10:32pm.
The Republicans will probably do all they can to slow this impeachment process down.
I don't know the other two all that well, but I live in Garrison's district. I really can't see her as the type that would rush into anything unprepared.
Impeachments
Submitted by TAmber1 on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 10:50pm.
Impeachments are not appealable in a court of law, FYI.
They weren't chosen haphazardly
Submitted by ols on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 11:26pm.
There aren't as many attorneys in the statehouse as you would expect. In fact, that was one of Dann's "claims to fame and importance" while he was in the Senate - he was one of the few attorneys and that was supposed to be relevant when he ran for AG (as if not all AG candidates were, oh I don't know, attorneys). Anyhow, Garrison got her J.D. from Catholic University, Dodd his from Cincinnati, and Okey from Ohio Northern. I'm pretty sure all their t's will be thoroughly crossed.
And yeah, TAmber1 is right - impeachments under the Ohio Constitution do not appear to be appealable in a court of law. Of course, since modernesquire has so thoroughly detailed the issue of the 1808 impeachment, we know that this would be an issue of first impression for the Ohio Supreme Court if Dann did seek legal redress, so who knows what those crazy cats would do. They're all Repubs, so it's possible they'd find it advantageous to make it appealable, but I think they have more scruples than that. And well, they could be threatened with impeachment if they decided otherwise... :)
Judiciary has no subject-matter jurisdiction over impeachment
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 9:11am.
Pho beat me to the punch, and has written an excellent post on the state of the law regarding impeachment and an analysis in which I agree wholeheartedly.
As Pho points out, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court, in interpreting the impeachment provisions in the U.S. Constitution, found that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review even procedural matters regarding impeachment.
In order for the Ohio Supreme Court to rule that Dann has a right to bring his impeachment under judicial review, they would have to find a way to distinguish impeachment under Ohio's constitution from impeachment under the U.S. Consttition in a way that permits such a review. Contextually, I don't see anything in the Ohio Constitution which would permit such an interpretation. And I seriously doubt that the Ohio Supreme Court would create a precedent in contradiction from Nixon, as it would seriously violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Remember, impeachment is the legislature's check against the Executive and the Judicial branches. The only check against the legislature's use of its impeachment powers is the people who can vote out a legislature that abuses its impeachment powers. That was the intent of Ohio's Framers.
Believe me, this is an issue the Ohio Supreme Court will be all to happy to avoid, until they have to consider what ramifications it has with Dann's law license, if any.
Eh, I disagree.
Submitted by ols on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 11:48am.
Not on the validity of the OSC to exercise judicial review, but on the difficulty of distinguishing the Ohio Constitution from the federal one or on the clarity of the issue of judicial review of impeachment under Ohio constitution.
The Ohio Supreme Court simply needs to rely on Scalia's old standby - original intent. Was the Ohio constitution intended to mimic the U.S. Constitution issue? Perhaps. But, since SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear this issue, the Ohio S.Ct. can decide this matter itself by distinguishing the U.S. Constitution in a myriad of ways. Afterall, if it was intended to mirror the U.S. constitution, why did they simply use "misdemeanors" rather than "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and misdemeanors," allowing the former to address non-criminal misdeeds while the latter is more restrictive. As a result, the Ohio Constitution's impeachment proceedings could turn abusive in nature and therefore require judicial review that the U.S. constitution does not need or did not intend.
Further, and perhaps the better argument, is the distinctions in *how* an impeachment is conducted. The fed const. states that the Senate "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." (Art. I Sec. 2). The Ohio constitution, however, provides that during impeachment, "the senators, when sitting for that purpose, shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence." (Art. II, Sec. 24) The inclusion of the senators' obligations could be used to suggest that unlike the federal Senate's sole discretion in impeachment proceedings, the Ohio senators are bound by external laws and therefore are subject to judicial review.
There, I just made a (semi?) valid argument for distinguishing the two, although I don't actually agree with the argument. The point was that the argument is not difficult to make and is, in my humble opinion, definitely not decided yet. I do think, per Pho's posting, that the OSC could (and should) decline to address the issue based on the political question doctrine, but I don't think they're obligated to.
Man, I feel like I'm back in Con Law I with Lockwood, making arguments I don't agree with (usually I can at least convince myself that the argument I'm making is valid and appropriate by the time I conclude it).
Read again, OLS
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 12:12pm.
I said I didn't see anything textually that would serve as a basis to say that there's judicial review for impeachment. Are their textual differences, sure. (BTW, can one commit treason against a State?) I don't see how the Ohio impeachment proceedings could be any more abusive than what is perfectly accepted under the U.S. Constitution which, under Nixon, there is absolutely no judicial review at all. There is a check for such abuse, as I stated earlier, but it is the people, not the judiciary. That's why impeachment begins in the political body that was intended to be most sensitive to the wishes of the people, the Ohio House with its two-year terms.
Regardless, because impeachment is a political check on the judiciary as well, it makes no sense that the Framers would have intended for judicial review of impeachment, and the political question applies as to allow otherwise would violate the separation of powers doctrine.
I remember Prof. Lockwood's class, too... :) That's all I'm going to say about that!
dont need to
Submitted by saggitarius on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 12:11am.
Be an attorney to be AG. Never spelled at as such in the constitution. I might throw my hat in the race, am I an atty? No but I did watch Law and Order last night.
yeah, but...
Submitted by ols on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 1:33am.
every AG since at least John Bricker's election in 1933 has been an attorney and I think a non-attorney would have a very difficult campaign ahead of them (read: a snowball's chance in Satan's hometown). I can't think of a non-attorney candidate from the last 20 years? I realize it's not a formal requirement, but it's a practical one, IMHO.
Dann's the Mann
Submitted by Schmennis on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 4:16am.
As others have stated, republicans are going to stretch out this process for as long as they can.
There are still 7 separate investigations underway or on their way. And a FEDERAL EEOC investigation that has yet to be completed. AND DO NOT FORGET, CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE STATE!!!!!!!!!!
I am stating that this will be a long process not only because of that, but because Dann NO DOUBT will reserve the "nuclear option."
Dann has circled his wagons being THIS arrogant has to be attributed to something...I contend that he, Alyssa Lenhoff and or Jessica Utovich has given him information (re: other extra martial affairs) that he can use to defend his office.
I promise that Dann has already told people he will use the scorched earth policy to stay in office. There are PLENTY of rumors floating around this fair city of other politicians (D)'s as well as (R)'s and their infidelities, I don't think we need to mention any of them....
Is it possible that that this "culture" wasn't created by Dann or limited to the AG's office and is more of a culture of the Democratic party in Ohio?
Is it possible that STRICKLAND has created this culture and that Dann knows it?
To be honest I am down right afraid of what Dann knows at this time.
Could Dann be working up dossiers on every elected democrat in Ohio????
"Otto Beatty had repeatedly asked city officials to purchase his property, valued at more than $1.4 million, as early as last April." & "Beatty sent out a letter supporting a RiverSouth area parking garage, but suggested it be located on his property." Joyce can rail all she wants about Matthew H. Barrett but plenty of people in the 27th district don't like her either and all Dann would have to do is walk through her bullet riddled district to get the scoop on the, "do nothing" lame duck.
Timelines
Submitted by Cranky Old Man on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 5:44am.
It's tricky. I think it will be very difficult for any Democrat to win the AG's seat in a special election, regardless of who it is. I just think the office is tainted and it's going to take some time. If Dann holds out until Sept. 24th, Strickland can appoint someone w/o a special election and that person will have 2 years to clean up the image of the office and still win in 2010. On the other hand, the longer Dann is in office the more he jeopardizes other candidates this fall. In my opinion, the House is more important than the AG's office at this stage in the game. The AG's office is not an apportionment board seat, but taking the House now will have a significant impact on how the lines are drawn for another decade.
Better be sure
House Ds better be letter perfect in this impeachment process. Dann will never leave. Does he have another source of income? Will there ever be a firm that wants his name on their letterhead? He'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. It's just not in his nature to do the honorable thing. And if you go after him and fail to get a conviction, he'll look like a victim. The Traficant Contingent will feel sorry for him. I know people want swift justice, but jumping out there too fast and not getting this guy out of office would be a disaster.