参议员们上周庄严宣誓，要开始对唐纳德·特朗普总统的弹劾审判，发誓他们将在这个过程中保持公正。如果那些参议员中有谁违背了誓言会怎么样？
誓言与宪法本身一样古老，是在对总统权力进行最重要的检查时确认参议员职责的重要仪式，这是一个过程弹劾和审判接下来。
由首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨主持的誓言开始时写道:“你是否庄严宣誓，在所有与弹劾唐纳德·约翰·川普的审判相关的事情上，现在悬而未决，你将根据宪法和法律进行公正的审判:上帝保佑你？”
然而，对于任何违反公正誓言的参议员，我们几乎无能为力，因为它不具有法律约束力。
哈佛大学宪法学教授劳伦斯·特里伯说:“参议员们在弹劾审判前所做的宣誓确实没有强制执行的机制。”新闻周刊。“它的主要目的是提醒参议员们自己的职责，但对他们的要求实际上取决于每个参议员个人。”
特朗普的著名批评者部落(Tribe)表示，他认为投票反对在参议院审判中听取证人证词——这是目前国会共和党人和民主党人之间政治争论的主题——是“不符合公正誓言的”
“归根结底，这是一个意见问题，参议院不能因为某个成员投票的方式而惩罚或开除该成员。任何法院也不能以参议员不真正公正或不应该回避为由进行干预，”部落告诉新闻周刊。
这并不意味着没有办法追究参议员违反誓言的责任。这个问题是政治性的，而不是法律性的，所以对违背誓言的参议员的补救措施也是政治性的。
教堂山北卡罗莱纳大学法学教授迈克尔·葛哈德作为众议院弹劾调查的专家证人作证时说:“至少有两种机制可以处理参议员在弹劾审判中违反誓言的情况。”新闻周刊。
“一个当然是选举过程——他们必须竞选连任，并对自己的不当行为负责。另一个是在参议院提出的道德指控或被驱逐出参议院。”
参议院可以以三分之二多数投票驱逐任何成员。这已经只发生了15次从1789年开始。
如果没有任何异乎寻常的或犯罪的行为，比如在审判中收受贿赂以进行这样或那样的投票，这会招致两党的谴责，即使一个政党拥有三分之二的多数，后一种选择也不太可能被采纳，而目前两党都没有。
以赤裸裸的党派理由驱逐参议员开了一个代价高昂的先例，不可避免地会烧死每个人。双方都没有被指控不偏不倚。
相反，选民是让违背誓言的参议员承担责任的最佳和最实际的手段，他们的选举对手可能会将这一问题武器化。
然而，这也是有缺陷的，因为一些参议员坐在安全的席位上，因此政治反击的可能性很小。宣誓问题真正反映的是弹劾程序的党派性这一更广泛的问题。
共和党和民主党参议员对方认为他们打算违背公正誓言的证据。这说明了誓言的核心矛盾:它是大多数党派政治家的公正承诺。
耶鲁大学法学院法律和政治学教授阿克希尔·阿玛尔在1999年的一篇文章中发表了誓言霍夫斯塔尔法律评论克林顿被弹劾后。阿玛认为参议员不应该在弹劾期间与他们的政党举行核心会议。
“要做到真正、深刻、真正、公正，每个参议员都必须做到im-party-al。“也就是说，每个参议员都应该试图从她的法律决策中完全抹去所有与政党有关的问题，”阿玛写道对于共和党和民主党总统来说，公正的司法必须是一样的。"
阿玛建议参议员可以想象受审的被告来自他们自己的政党，而他们不是，或者想象他们实际上是反对党的一员，这是一种政治共鸣。
“但这两种想象练习在心理上都很难做到——类似于写涉及平行宇宙的科幻剧本，”阿玛写道。
“然而，一个真正尽责的参议员很容易做一件事:避开任何讨论弹劾问题的‘政党’核心小组。参议员们必须可以自由地在他们之间和小团体中非正式地交谈——但是党派关系不应该起任何作用。
“任何想参加‘共和党’核心小组的民主党人都应该被允许这样做——反之亦然。普通法官在进行审议时，从来不会分裂成民主党和共和党核心小组，普通陪审员也不会。”
对特朗普的审判，阿玛20年前的分析仍然适用。参议院中的大多数民主党人和大多数共和党人正在进行党团会议，陷入党派之争，阿玛尔对弹劾程序的批评再次得到证实。
(L-R)参议员林赛·格雷厄姆(共和党参议员)、参议员罗伊·布朗特(共和党参议员)、最高法院首席法官约翰·罗伯茨和参议员帕特·莱希(民主党参议员)于2020年1月16日抵达华盛顿特区美国国会大厦参议院进行弹劾程序
SENATORS WHO BREAK THEIR OATH OF IMPARTIALITY TO THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FACE LITTLE CONSEQUENCE
Senators took a solemn, historic oath last week to open the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, swearing that they would be impartial in the process. So what happens if any of those senators break that oath?
The oath is as old as the constitution itself and an important ritual to affirm the duty of senators when undertaking the single most important check on presidential power, which is the process of impeachment and the trial that follows it.
"Do you solemnly swear," the oath, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts, began, "that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws: So help you God?"
However, little can be done directly about any senators who violate the oath of impartiality because it is not legally binding.
"There really is no mechanism for enforcing the oath that senators take before an impeachment trial," Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, told Newsweek. "Its main purpose is to remind the senators of their own duties, but what it requires of them is really up to each senator individually."
Tribe, a prominent critic of Trump, said he has argued that voting against hearing witnesses at the Senate trial—an issue that is currently the subject of a political wrangle between Republicans and Democrats in Congress—is "incompatible with the oath of impartiality."
"That is, ultimately, a matter of opinion and the Senate could not penalize or expel a member because of how that member votes. Nor could any court interfere on the ground that a senator was not being truly impartial or ought to recuse," Tribe told Newsweek.
This does not mean there is no way of holding senators to account for violating their oath. The issue is political, not legal, so the remedy for oath-breaking senators is political, too.
"There are at least two mechanisms for addressing situations when senators break their oaths in impeachment trials," Michael Gerhardt, a jurisprudence professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who gave evidence as an expert witness to the House impeachment inquiry, told Newsweek.
"One is, of course, the electoral process—they have to stand for re-election and account for their misconduct. The other is an ethics charge brought in the Senate or expulsion from the Senate."
The Senate can vote by a two-thirds majority to expel any member. This has happened only 15 times since 1789.
Absent any egregious or criminal behavior, such as taking a bribe to vote one way or the other at the trial, which would inspire bipartisan condemnation, the latter option would not likely be pursued even if a party had a two-thirds majority, which presently neither does.
Expelling senators for nakedly partisan reasons sets a Pyrrhic precedent that would inevitably burn everyone. Neither side is clean of accusations of impartiality.
Instead, voters are the best and most practical means of holding to account oath-breaking senators, whose electoral opponents could weaponize the issue.
This is also flawed, however, because some senators are in safe seats and so the potential for political blowback is muted. What the oath issue really reflects is a broader problem with the partisanship of the impeachment process.
Both Republican and Democratic senators have made comments seized on by the other side as evidence that they intend to break the oath of impartiality. This speaks to the oath's central contradiction: It is a pledge of impartiality by politicians who are, for the most part, partisan.
Akhil Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale Law School, addressed the oath in a 1999 article for the Hofstra Law Review in the wake of the Clinton impeachment. Amar argued that senators should not caucus with their parties during impeachment.
"To be truly, deeply, really, impartial, each senator must be im-party-al. That is, each senator should try to wholly blot out of her legal decision-making all issues concerning political party," Amar wrote. "Impartial justice must be the same for Republican and Democratic presidents alike."
Amar suggested that senators could imagine the defendant on trial was from their own party when they are not, or imagine that they are actually a member of the opposing party, a kind of political empathy.
"But both of these imaginative exercises are psychologically hard to do—akin to writing sci-fi scripts involving parallel universes," Amar wrote.
"There is, however, one thing that a truly conscientious senator can easily do: Shun any 'party' caucus discussing impeachment issues. Senators must be free to talk informally amongst themselves and in small groups—but party affiliation should play no role whatsoever.
"Any Democrat who wants to listen in on a 'Republican' caucus should be allowed to do so—and vice versa. Ordinary judges, when they deliberate, never break up into Democratic and Republican caucuses, and neither do ordinary jurors."
With Trump's trial, Amar's analysis from 20 years ago still applies. The majority of Democrats and the majority of Republicans in the Senate are caucusing, falling into party lines, and Amar's criticisms of the impeachment process are bearing out once again.
(L-R) Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) arrive to the Senate chamber for impeachment proceedings at the U.S. Capitol on January 16, 2020 in Washington, D.C.
