Subscribe for 99¢
The Latest: Hill slams ‘fictional narrative’ about Ukraine

Ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes of Calif.,left, Steve Castor, the Republican staff attorney, center, and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, huddle as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political opponents. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

I majored in political science in college. After graduating from law school, I worked for over 32 years as a lawyer in the executive branch of the federal government. That background notwithstanding, I am very confused by the position of certain members of Congress that the current impeachment proceedings are nothing more than the “undoing” of an election; and that instead, the “will of the people” should be resolved at the ballot box.

To follow that logic to its extreme, apparently under no circumstances should the House of Representatives ever, regardless of the gravity of the offense, impeach a sitting president, nor should the Senate thereafter remove the president from office after a trial. Indeed, to do so, the argument goes, would run counter to the will of those citizens who elected that president. This would ostensibly be the argument even if all members of the House, and the entirety of the Senate, are in absolute agreement that an impeachable offense was committed. That, at least to me, seems absurd and clearly contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Why, then, is impeachment even mentioned in the Constitution?

I am not advocating for the impeachment of the current president, nor am I advocating against it. Instead, I am searching for a better understanding of the stance being posited regarding not undoing the will of the people.

Michael W. Bitner • Springfield, Ill.