Roberts Denies Powers of Impeachment

In our country some judicial powers are distributed. The executive has the power to bring charges and try cases in a court. Courts are saddled with juries, who represent actual democracy at work, since they are common people stepping up to judge cases.  The Judiciary is not supposed to make law, but through the power of interpretation often over-rides the legislature to make laws at odds with the will of the people. The separations of powers in the constitution are not absolute. Checks and balances require powers be distributed among the branches to put a check on tyranny and usurpation. 

Impeachment and oversight

The Constitution gave the house a judicial role when they gave the HOUSE has "sole power of impeachment." Roberts can't and won't do squat about executive corruption. Neither the executive nor the judiciary can be trusted to investigate themselves.  For that reason the impeachment process was distributed to the legislature.

Necessary and proper to impeachment

The House's sole power of impeachment requires inquiry powers beyond those with a purely legislative purpose.  Impeachment cannot be severed from oversight. Subpoenas are necessary & proper to discovering when impeachment is needed! Without the power to look at records and investigate issues, the impeachment power is denied.

Justice Roberts Denies Impeachment Power

Justice Roberts can't "give powers of oversight" to the house. The constitution gave the house those powers when they gave the house "sole power of impeachment." Nevertheless he sent the case back to the lower courts ordering them to meet 3 criteria!

One; The asserted legislative purpose is to oversee the President in a case where clear wrong doing has already been discovered, and determine whether or not impeachment is justified. Whether the House actually can send additional articles of impeachment to the Senate is immaterial. Whether they are actually impeaching the president yet, is also immaterial. Roberts should have denied certiori on this request because its not his business to rule on a House Constitutional prerogative.

Two; For the same reason, it is up to the house how broad a subpoena is. Impeachment is an administrative & political proceeding since the most Congress can do is remove and bar from office.  The house involves the courts when the executive disputes a subpoena. They are looking at evidence of misconduct.  They may pass laws to close the barn doors afterwards, but they have a natural right to the information.

Third; the courts need to remember the House has a legitimate legislative purpose in examining tax records of executives. This should be a moot point.

Fourth; the President has a duty to respond to subpoenas. The burden is on him complying.

There was no need to remand either case back to the courts. The House had already established a legislative purpose when they issued them, because this is part of their "sole power" of impeachment.