While Trump will almost certainly be acquitted within the next few days, impeachment might still damage him politically. And the long-term impact of this process will likely take a long time to unfold.
Trump's lawyer did not say a president "can do anything" to get re-elected, but he did say that goal cannot count as a corrupt motive.
A major constitutional clash is unfolding at SCOTUS.
Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent they may come to regret the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.
It at least sends a message against future abuses of executive power.
As Rep. Justin Amash notes, the second article of impeachment charges the president with obstructing Congress by refusing to provide documents and testimony.
Josh Blackman argues that the tradeoff isn't worth it. Here's why I disagree.
Republicans might rue that mistake when Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders inherits Trump's beefed-up trade authority.
A response to Josh Blackman's New York Times op-ed on the case against Trump (with updates)
Even the president’s buddies understand the threat posed by the unconstrained use of military force.
Plus: Tarriffs are killing U.S. wine, Vermont bill would ban cell phones for kids, and more...
The former press secretary thinks abiding by the Constitution would be the worst thing for America right now.
"Somehow we've decided that the one job in America that gets the most job protection is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons," says the Cato Institute's Gene Healy.
Americans can lose their jobs for almost anything. Why are we so hesitant to give presidents the boot?
Democratic presidential candidates sparred over how they'd close one of the worst excesses of the war on terror.
Recent revisions to state law will facilitate such duplicative prosecutions of people associated with the president.
Many of the president's beefs are frivolous, but he is right that impeachment has been rushed.
Meanwhile, outgoing Gov. Matt Bevin made some controversial pardon choices as he headed for the door.
The gaps in the record invite the public to dismiss impeachment as a purely partisan exercise.
While the president’s motives in seeking Ukrainian investigations are a matter of dispute, his actions are clear from the public record.
In assessing impeachment, we should keep in mind Trump's usurpation of Congress' power over federal spending. This is a serious violation of the Constitution, and focusing on it overcomes some standard objections to impeachment.
Rules are for the little people, not the eighth richest man on the planet.
Just like their counterparts in the Democratic Party do!
Pentagon brass, who urged the president not to issue these orders, fear that the president's actions will undermine the system of military justice.
The allegations against Trump are more serious than the offenses that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment because they relate directly to his duties as president.
Faced with a president they find repulsive to the core and with unfunded future payment obligations in the many trillions, Democrats think now is the time to really unleash Washington.
The Trump administration's justification for rescinding DACA relies heavily on the claim that the program is illegal. But it's not.
His desperate attempt to stop a grand jury from seeing his tax returns invokes kingly powers that would put the president above the law.
If, at the end of all this, President Mike Pence sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, what has been accomplished?
The decision is the first to address the legality of using the emergency declaration for this purpose. Previous wall cases involved Trump's attempts to redirect other funds.
In making the case against the House impeachment inquiry, the White House counsel relies upon a repudiated district court opinion that doesn't even support its argument.
Federal agencies evade the rulemaking process, yet still levy fines, revoke permits, and seize property via “guidance.” Trump’s orders may put a stop to this practice.
"We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"
Thirteen legal scholars weigh in, including the VC's Keith Whittington and myself.
The president's threats might prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward to expose executive abuse.
Libertarian-leaning legislators have markedly different ideas about the I-word. What say the Reason editors?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders convinced the Fifth Circuit to declare the Federal Housing Finance Agency's structure unconstitutional, but they're seeking Supreme Court review nonetheless.
While there may be sound political reasons to let voters decide Trump's fate, there are sound constitutional reasons to clarify the limits of his authority.
If Trump threatened to withhold aid funds in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and his son, he undermined Congress' power of the purse. It's an important aspect of the Ukraine scandal that has so far been largely ignored.
The decision comes amidst allegations that President Trump pressured Ukraine into performing opposition research on Joe Biden.
As Trump's trade wars demonstrate, giving the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs is both dangerous and unconstitutional. Getting rid of it is likely to require a combination of litigation and political mobilization.
Again and again, the president tried to interfere with the Mueller investigation in a roundabout way.
Pending restrictions on vaping products in Michigan and New York are based on an alarmingly broad understanding of the executive branch's "public health" authority.
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.
The Democratic presidential field is not interested in your puny restraints on the executive branch.
Hopefully the White House can refrain from creating any new constitutional conundrums for a semester.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks