Folks PLEASE! STOP attacking the Dems for not impeaching TODAY

[onenote]

194. It is an unresolved question.

There are arguments -- and scholarly views -- on both sides of the issue. So no one can definitively say whether a "former" office holder can be impeached.

The closest thing to a precedent on the matter is the impeachment of William Belknap in 1876. With impeachment likely, he resigned in March, but the House went forward and impeached him. The Senate conducted a trial. By a majority vote, they rejected the argument that they lacked jurisdiction due to Belknap's resignation, but on a vote to convict, they failed to achieve the required 2/3 majority. While it is thought that concerns over the jurisdictional issue influenced the vote on conviction, the only available precedent indicates that the House and Senate were of the view that a resignation does not stop an impeachment or subsequent trial from taking place -- and no court has had an opportunity to pass on the question.

I lean in the direction that it is within the permissible boundaries of the constitution since it would otherwise allow an officeholder to negate Congress' authority to deny an office holder the right to hold office in the future.