Is refusal to send the impeachment to the senate "obstruction of congress"?

Nancy Pelosi is withholding sending the impeachment articles to the senate until the senate agrees to meet her preconditions for a trial.

The US constitution says:
The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
Article 1, section 3

According to the constitution, the House as zero say in the actual trial.

Does Pelosi’s threat amount to unconstitutional obstruction of congress and abuse of power?


I’m certain if it did the GOP would be all over it.

Of course.

At this point I expect the House will pass another article of impeachment if Trump vetoes a bill. While not violating any law, that could be twisted into “obstruction of congress”.

Certainly obstructing justice.



From what I see, the Senate is free to dismiss the charges if the House Democrats refuse to show up.

That’s absurd

The Senate is the sole arbiter of trials, they make their own rules and can most certainly dismiss it if Pelosi wants to try and assert authority over the senate trial.

The second impeachment article accuses Trump “obstruction of congress” because he as refused to immediately turn over everything in congressional subpoenas. Trump has the constitutional right to defend his actions in court, but the House is effectively saying that allowing the courts to decide is an impeachable offence.

Basically the House is saying that using the constitutional right to due process is an impeachable offense. By that logic, a presidential veto could be impeachable as well.


For the 500th time anything can be Impeachable. They could impeach trump for his shoes if they so inclined.

They arent because its dumb…just like impeaching over a veto


Not according to The Constitution.

1 Like

Good for you.


The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article 2, section 2

Letting courts decide a dispute with congress does not fit with the constitutional definition of an impeachable offense.

1 Like

The fun part is anything a President does can be labelled “obstruction” or “abuse of power”. Obama could easily, using Dem guidelines, have been impeached for obstruction when he allowed Holder to withhold fast and furious documents. Obama could have been charged with abuse of power for DACA, or abuse of power for lying to the American people about being able to keep your insurance.

These are basically another way of saying “we don’t like him a lot so we are going to impeach him”.
The 2/3 requirement for the Senate was a pretty good idea. It sort of leaves the reality of impeachment for real criminals.


He could have been impeached and removed from office over the gulf drilling ban. Remember the administration was held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court order to reopen the gulf.


It’s not impeachment until they send it to the senate…until then it’s just a vote for impeachment.

Fake impeachment.

1 Like

What is interesting is that it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto, but only a majority in the house to impeach. If the House is successful, future presidents could be impeached and removed from office if the opposition has veto-proof majority in the senate but can’t get enough votes in the House to override.

The house cannot override the Senate’s decision to convict and remove the POTUS even with a unanimous vote.

What time period is “immediately” in the context of your post?

Can anyone point to legal authority for the Speaker of the House to refuse to send an impeachment to the senate?

Of course, the senate can simply ignore the whole thing, or it can set a deadline for delivery and say the impeachments are dismissed if Pelosi refuses to comply.