Is impeachment of a President biblically justified?

[phil19034]

Romans 13:1-2

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

So scripture appears to imply that impeachment of a head of state is sinful. There’s a lot of discussion by our separated brethren over Romans 13 but little by Catholics. Opinions?

First - I am NOT in favor of impeaching Trump.

Now that I’ve said that, NO, it is not sinful to properly impeach and convict a President to remove him from office.

However, it very well might be sinful to impeach based on bogus charges, esp if the Congressman who is voting for impeachment knows the charges are bogus and based on hatred of the President and/or in an effort to protect abortion.

 

[TULIPed]

So far, we have seen no sound evidence of treason (I read the transcript).

So there has to be evidence of treason to impeach. Got it.

I sure hope they don’t find a stained blue dress stashed somewhere in the Oval Office, cause that’ll be evidence that he committed…treason?

As to the OP, there is a slightly different angle on this discussion from a biblical viewpoint that I’d posit. Statecraft is an interesting topic in the Bible. In the Old Testament in particular, God often uses - and even promotes - pagan states to his purposes, e.g. Babylon, Egypt, and Assyria were all used to varying degrees by God in the OT (mostly against the Israelite kingdoms!). As one moves further into philosophical territory, we get concepts like “just war”, which we juxtapose against “thou shalt not murder”.

The question this brings to my mind is: can - or how - do you apply biblical principles to statecraft? Is the Bible primarily “pointed” towards people, and not states?

As a bookend - and to turn the argument around a bit, Eric Metaxas in his book “If You Can Keep It” argues that the Founding Fathers were banking on the idea that Judeo-Christian values shared by the American people would preserve a non-dictatorial state. Even in this case though, to survive in a world where nobody plays by the same rules, are states not exempt in some form from Biblical precepts?

I dunno. I’m just spitballing.

 

[De_Maria]

… A democracy, however, would break with that because we’ve usurped the role of any divine appointment, if there was one. …

I don’t think that’s possible. God can work through a democratic process as easily as anything else. To me, the election of Trump is a clear sign that God worked through the democratic process to have him elected and is using him to begin to dismantle all that satan has done in the past 60 years.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Then I’ll simply say I don’t believe God has been involved in appointing government leaders since the time of Solomon, and Mr. Trump is a clear example of it (as are others). Those are my two cents, and I’m leaving what I think is a devolving thread. Good day.

 

[tafan2]

Impeachment can be a coup d’état.

Impeachment is most certainly not a coup d’etat. It is a lawful means of removing a person from office. The presidency only exists die to the Constitution. Certainly the Constitution can define the various means of a transfer of power. If one applies your reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, a president could not morally be voted out if office. Absurd in the extreme.

 

[De_Maria]

bibcat:

Impeachment can be a coup d’état.

Impeachment …is a lawful means of removing a person from office…

Not if its based on trumped up charges. And, personally, I don’t see that Trump has committed any impeachable offenses.

 

[bibcat]

Preside but not vote. That’s what the lay Senators, de facto representatives of the “commoners” in their respective states would do.

 

[bibcat]

No, 535 politicians. Unless the 435 congresscritters that have to vote on “indictment” (impeachment) somehow don’t matter.

 

[Fauken]

Preside but not vote. That’s what the lay Senators, de facto representatives of the “commoners” in their respective states would do.

How do you imagine then that Senate would lynch the President then on bogus charges that the Judge would overrule?

 

[bibcat]

The SCOTUS presiding is a formality. If 2/3 of the Senate votes to convict, the President is convicted, even if the offense is spitting on the sidewalk. And there’s no recourse to judicial review!

 

[bibcat]

God hasn’t appointed a leader since Solomon? St. Paul would, apparently, beg to differ.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think the Catholic Church at the time would have tended to see it as a sinful act of rebellion against lawful authority.

Interesting. The Catholic Church would’ve been utterly wrong if it had that opinion.

 

[Fauken]

The SCOTUS presiding is a formality. If 2/3 of the Senate votes to convict, the President is convicted, even if the offense is spitting on the sidewalk. And there’s no recourse to judicial review!

So first it’s:

And if, as you say, impeachable offenses are invariably enshrined in the United States Code (they’re not), then let a real court with a real judge or tribunal of judges hear it, rather than 535 politicians.

Now it’s been established that an actual judge presides over the trial, it’s:

The SCOTUS presiding is a formality. If 2/3 of the Senate votes to convict, the President is convicted, even if the offense is spitting on the sidewalk. And there’s no recourse to judicial review!

Shall we get rid of juries then? Even in “regular” trials the jury decides guilt or innocence, not the judge. Do you honestly think that if a President got convicted of a non-offence that it wouldn’t wind up in the Supreme Court and get over turned? Show me where in the Constitution that an impeached President gets no appeal to the SCOTUS.

So what’s your real problem? The Senate of 100 people is apparently out to throw the President over a non-offence, and the 300+ members of the HoR are in on it too, but somehow they couldn’t swing the Chief Justice which would somehow prevent this whole absurd scenario? The President gets more jurors than anyone else indicted of a felony would, and a miscarriage of justice will happen while the Chief Justice just sits there shrugging?

God hasn’t appointed a leader since Solomon? St. Paul would, apparently, beg to differ.

Can you provide some proof that the Church supports your interpretation of St. Paul?

 

[twf]

Would it have? The US was horribly anti-Catholic as a society for its first couple centuries. The idea that the US is a divinely anointed city on a hill is not endorsed by the Church.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

I said I don’t believe so; I also said I understand that Paul and others thought this way. I disagree with them, so of course he would beg to differ.

 

[bibcat]

Judicial Review of Impeachments :: Article II. Executive Department :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia Judicial review is foreclosed. Sorry for the bad news.

 

[bibcat]

You disagree with St. Paul? Even Martin Luther never went that far.

 

[Gorgias]

So scripture appears to imply that impeachment of a head of state is sinful.

Wow. Just… wow.

In a democracy, we are the leaders. All of us. We elect representatives and folks to perform executive functions.

As a result, when a leader is removed from office, the “authority which God has established” – that is, us – has removed the civil servant whom we put in office in the first place.

So… no. Not un-Scriptural.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Trying to get back to the OP and the issue of removing authority: didn’t Pius V encourage the overthrow of Queen Elizabeth I?

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

On a minor point; not critical doctrine! Give me a break, here. Man doesn’t live on every word that floweth from the mouth of Paul - or any other saint, published in scripture or not. That doesn’t mean I don’t give due reverence to the point they make; I just don’t take every word literally like my childhood Protestant upbringing tried to teach me.