the constitution says removal from office AND punishment not OR.
Actually, the Constitution says:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" and
both are punishments for abusing the trust of a public office.
The Constitution does not use the word "or" to insure that these two exclusive punishments for impeachment could not be misconstrued as
mutually exclusive. They are the exclusive punishments in that they are the only ones that may be applied on conviction [shall not extend further than], but they are
not mutually exclusive. Removal is mandatory for a current office holder if convicted; disqualification is optional. If the framers had chosen to use the word "or" between the punishments in writing that provision into the Constitution, one then could have argued that conviction on impeachment would allow for removal from office "or" disqualification, but not
both punishments. That was clearly not the intent of the framers in providing for only those two exclusive punishments. Both may be applied to current office holders that are impeached and convicted; it is not an either/"or" proposition. Common sense and the simplest logic infer that only the latter applies to those no longer in office.
To suggest that someone cannot be disqualified from future office, as long as they leave office either prior to impeachment or trial, would render the framers' inclusion of disqualification as a punishment so easily avoidable, it would be a toothless and meaningless provision. The idea that the framers' use of the word "and" provides a loophole thru which those guilty of serious misconduct in office can escape
both the mandatory removal punishment
and the more severe optional punishment of being disqualified from future office, simply by leaving office, would assume the framers were either too foolish to realize their error in choice of wording which allows anyone to escape without any political punishment of any kind simply by leaving office or that they
intentionally put in a loophole, so that even the most corrupt and dangerous of public officials could later resume their political offices and machinations, simply by leaving their current office to escape impeachment and removal,
and by doing so escape disqualification. The framers were anything but fools, but to think that they desired and designed an escape mechanism thru the use of the word "and" in listing the two political punishments available for those dangerous or corrupt individuals that abuse their trust in holding office
is foolish. It would render the inclusion of impeachment, trial, removal, and disqualification in the Constitution as a futile exercise in which any political punishment—including the most severe punishment of disqualification from holding any future office—could be easily avoided by even the most corrupt and dangerous individuals by resigning from office prior to impeachment or trial and then returning to office to engage in further treachery. The belief that this was the intention of the framers is absurd.
The logical conclusion based on precedent and history is that impeachment, trial, and the punishments prescribed were written into the Constitution to guard the nation from corrupt or dangerous individuals given the honor and trust of public office. Removal from office is a remedy to a current danger. Disqualification is a remedy for
future dangers. In providing the remedy of disqualification for individuals whose conduct in office has been so egregious as to present an ongoing danger, it would be rational to assume that the framers were more concerned with the future ability of dangerous individuals to inhabit high positions within the government rather than whether such individuals were impeached or tried a month before they left office or a month after leaving office. It is the
misconduct of an official while in office that is of primary importance in an impeachment and not their current office status for reasons that should be obvious. Given the history of impeachment with which the framers were familiar and their inclusion of it the Constitution to guard the nation from misconduct by officials while serving, it is far more logical to assume that the use of "and"—in
"and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office"—is used in its simplest form to add
disqualification as a punishment for
any conviction of a current
or former holder of an office of public trust that may seek office again and
not a punishment that relies on whether an individual currently holds an office of trust from which they can be removed.
One can make the argument that removal from office
only by impeachment and conviction—and
not removal from office thru an election or resignation—was intended by the framers as a prerequisite for disqualification from future office, but if the rationale for that argument is the usage of the word "and" preceding disqualification, it makes for a very weak argument. It's a superficial argument that falls apart under the least scrutiny of history, precedent, logic, and most of all—intent.
The single most important question to ask in deciding the logic of that argument and the implied intent of the framers is... Why would the framers provide a mechanism for disqualification from future office—made optional so as to apply to only the most corrupt and dangerous individuals—and then make that disqualification so easily avoidable? Were they not really that concerned? Were they just not very bright or knowledgable in the use of language? Were they naive to the lengths that unscrupulous and dangerous individuals will go to obtain and hold on to power? I would say none of the above because the argument defies reason and common sense, even if one disregards the other issues of history and precedent.
