Suing Mcconnell: Constitutional Violations And Legal Recourse

There have been calls for lawsuits against Mitch McConnell, a US Senator and former Senate Majority Leader, for alleged violations of constitutional laws. McConnell has been accused of violating his oath of office by displaying bias during impeachment proceedings, which goes against the impartiality required by the Constitution and Senate rules. The McConnell Rule, established by McConnell in 2016, states that Supreme Court nominees should not have hearings in an election year, and there have been suggestions that this rule could be grounds for a lawsuit if broken. McConnell has also been involved in court cases such as McConnell v. FEC, which addressed the constitutionality of certain provisions in campaign finance law. Additionally, while it is challenging to sue government officials for constitutional violations, it is possible under certain circumstances, such as when the right violated is clearly established by the courts.

The 'McConnell Rule' and its legal validity

The McConnell Rule and its legal validity have been a subject of debate among legal experts and politicians. The rule, as stated by Mitch McConnell in 2016, asserts that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice". This implies that Supreme Court nominees should not be allowed hearings in an election year.

The legal validity of the McConnell Rule is based on the argument that parliamentary rules announced by Senate Majority Leaders carry legal force and are binding on future legislators unless explicitly overturned. This means that the McConnell Rule, like other parliamentary rules, has the force of law. Failure to adhere to this rule could thus be considered a violation of constitutional law.

However, some argue that the McConnell Rule is not law, claiming that it is a discretionary rule that can be changed at any time. Additionally, McConnell himself has stated that the rule only applies to “constitutionally lame-duck” presidents. This argument has been refuted by pointing out that President Obama was not a lame duck when the rule was announced, and that even if he was, the same logic would apply to a lame-duck Senate, making it arbitrary and unjustifiable to apply the rule only to presidents.

The validity of the McConnell Rule is a constitutional question that implicates fundamental democratic principles, including majority rule and due process for a significant portion of the Senate and the citizens they represent. As such, legal experts argue that the judiciary has the authority to intervene if McConnell violates his own rule, and Senate Democrats have been encouraged to take legal action to enforce the rule.

In conclusion, the McConnell Rule, despite its namesake's reluctance to acknowledge its legal status, is considered by many to carry the force of law. The rule's validity stems from the legal precedent of parliamentary rules set by Senate Majority Leaders and the constitutional principles it upholds. While there are differing interpretations and arguments regarding its scope and applicability, the potential consequences of violating the McConnell Rule highlight its significance in the American political and legal landscape.

Senator McConnell's impartiality in impeachment trials

Senator Mitch McConnell's impartiality in impeachment trials has been called into question, particularly in relation to the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell occupied a unique and powerful position in managing the Senate trial.

Article 1, Section 3 of the US Constitution states that senators must be "on Oath or Affirmation" when trying impeachments. The Constitution does not specify the contents of the oath, but it is generally understood to imply an obligation to administer impartial justice. The "Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials" further clarify the oath, which states: "I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____ ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."

In the lead-up to the impeachment trial of President Trump, McConnell made several public statements indicating his partiality and intention to coordinate with the White House. He stated, "I am not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's nothing judicial about it [...] I'm not impartial about this at all." McConnell also affirmed that he would be "in total coordination with the White House counsel" and that "there will be no difference between the president's position and our position."

These statements and actions by McConnell have been criticized as a violation of the oath of impartiality required by Senate rules and the US Constitution. Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy organization, requested that the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics investigate whether McConnell had violated his oath of office and the oath of impartiality, warranting recusal from the impeachment proceedings. They argued that McConnell's conduct reflected poorly upon the Senate and could potentially poison the proceedings.

Additionally, legal scholars and commentators have discussed the applicability of the "McConnell Rule" in this context. The McConnell Rule stems from McConnell's 2016 statement that "the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," which was interpreted as a precedent for not confirming Supreme Court nominees in an election year. Some argue that McConnell's abandonment of this rule for the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 constituted a violation of a fundamental democratic principle, and that Senate Democrats could pursue legal action to enforce the rule.

McConnell v. FEC

Senator McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate and had led several Senate filibusters to block its passage. The BCRA extended the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) coordination rules regarding expenditures coordinated with a candidate to those coordinated with a party committee. It directed the Commission to create rules that did not require "agreement or formal collaboration" to establish coordination. The Court found this provision to be constitutional, noting that the absence of an agreement requirement does not make the provision unconstitutionally vague.

The Court also found that the BCRA's ban on political contributions from individuals under 18 years old was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment rights of minors. Additionally, the Court ruled on several other challenges from the plaintiffs, including finding their challenge to the so-called Millionaire's Amendment to be nonjusticiable.

On May 2, 2003, the District Court determined that certain provisions of the BCRA were constitutional, while others were unconstitutional or nonjusticiable. The District Court stayed its ruling on May 19, 2003, while the case received an expedited appellate review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) partially overruled McConnell v. FEC.

The constitutionality of McConnell's abandonment of the 'McConnell Rule'

The "McConnell Rule" is a term coined by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2016, stating that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice". This rule was used to deny President Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland, confirmation hearings and a subsequent up-or-down vote in the Senate.

The constitutionality of McConnell's abandonment of the McConnell Rule is a complex issue. On the one hand, some argue that the McConnell Rule is not a formal rule but rather a majority action, and thus it cannot be justified by the rule-making powers granted to the Senate in Art. I, sec. 5. If this is the case, then McConnell's prevention of an up-or-down vote for Judge Garland may be considered a violation of the Constitution. This is because it infringes on the President's Art. II, sec. 2 appointment power, which requires not just the selection and announcement of a candidate but also a genuine opportunity for this candidate to be appointed through an up-or-down vote.

On the other hand, McConnell's abandonment of the McConnell Rule could be seen as a valid exercise of the Senate's constitutional powers. The Senate does have the power to advise and consent on presidential nominations, and while it cannot prevent the President's nominee from having an up-or-down vote, it can delay or obstruct this process through tactics like the filibuster. McConnell's use of the filibuster has been characterised by some as "constitutional hardball", contributing to democratic erosion in the United States.

Ultimately, the validity of McConnell's abandonment of the McConnell Rule is a constitutional question that implicates fundamental democratic principles of majority rule and due process. It is argued that the judiciary has the authority to intervene if McConnell violates his own rule, as it would if he changed the vote threshold or refused to step aside as majority leader. However, for this to occur, a court would first need to agree that the McConnell Rule is indeed law, and that it applies in this case.

Senator McConnell's violation of the oath of office

In 2019, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was accused of violating the oath of office by coordinating with the White House during President Donald Trump's impeachment trial. According to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, all senators must swear an oath to "'do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws'".

Senator McConnell made several public statements indicating his intention to coordinate with the White House during the impeachment trial. He told reporters, "I am not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's nothing judicial about it," and "I'm not impartial about this at all."

Jeffrey K. Tulis, a professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, asserted that Senator McConnell's actions were "anti-Constitutional" and that he would be "in literal violation" of the impeachment oath. Professor Tulis explained that the impeachment trial in the Senate is a unique proceeding that requires senators to take a new oath of office, acting as judges and jurors rather than legislators.

Public Citizen, a government watchdog group, requested that the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics investigate Senator McConnell's conduct and determine whether his public declarations violated the oath under the U.S. Constitution and the rules of the Senate requiring impartiality, thus warranting his recusal from the impeachment proceedings.

While Senator McConnell had not yet taken the oath of impartiality for the impeachment trial at the time of the accusations, his proclaimed intention to disregard the oath was seen as improper conduct. The remedy of recusal was sought to prevent any potential bias or unfairness in the proceedings.

Additionally, there have been calls for legal action against Senator McConnell regarding the 'McConnell Rule'. This rule, established by McConnell himself in 2016, states that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." Senate Democrats argued that if McConnell abandoned this rule, it would violate a fundamental democratic principle of due process, and they should have legal recourse.

Frequently asked questions