Page:Trial Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Second Impeachment Trial of President Donald John Trump.pdf/49

 Constitution to guard against any presidential conduct that constitutes a great and dangerous offense against the Nation—no matter the means for carrying out that malfeasance. And here, the House approved an article of impeachment that concerns not solely the President’s incitement, but also his conduct preceding and following his provocation of an armed assault on the Capitol.

Regardless, even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements. As the leader of the Nation, the President occupies a position of unique power. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not shield public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important government interests. Thus, just as a President may legitimately demand the resignation of a Cabinet Secretary who publicly disagrees with him on a matter of policy (which President Trump did repeatedly), the public’s elected representatives may disqualify the President from federal office when they recognize that his public statements constitute a violation of his oath of office and a high crime against the constitutional order. No one would seriously suggest that a President should be immunized from impeachment if he publicly championed the adoption of totalitarian government, swore an oath of eternal loyalty to a foreign power, or advocated that states secede from and overthrow the Union—even though private citizens could be protected by the First Amendment for such speech. By its own terms, and in light of its fundamentally democratic

Rh