Donald Trump & ‘Late Impeachment’: Is It Constitutional?

Michael Luttig is an estimable conservative legal thinker who used to be a federal judge. He reportedly helped to persuade Vice President Mike Pence that Pence did not have the power to overturn the results of the presidential election, and thus played a role in protecting the Constitution over the last few weeks. Now he is in the Washington Post arguing that protecting the Constitution also requires abandoning the idea of holding an impeachment trial after President Trump has left office. It’s not a frivolous case, but the proponents of “late impeachment” (including my colleague Dan McLaughlin) have a better one.

Luttig argues from the constitutional text, its purpose, and its historical interpretation. Let’s take them in order.

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

Michael Luttig is an estimable conservative legal thinker who used to be a federal judge. He reportedly helped to persuade Vice President Mike Pence that Pence did not have the power to overturn the results of the presidential election, and thus played a role in protecting the Constitution over the last few weeks. Now he is in the Washington Post arguing that protecting the Constitution also requires abandoning the idea of holding an impeachment trial after President Trump has left office. It’s not a frivolous case, but the proponents of “late impeachment” (including my colleague Dan McLaughlin) have a better one.

Luttig argues from the constitutional text, its purpose, and its historical interpretation. Let’s take them in order.