Resolution for Trump Impeachment

Ted Brown

Ted Brown

SLEC Member
The Libertarian Party of Travis County passed the following resolution on April 14, 2025. I have changed the last segment to read Libertarian Party of Texas. I move that LPTexas via SLEC adopt the following resolution. We are now at the stage of "First, they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist..." We have to get in front of this. The Democrats certainly don't seem to be doing much of anything.

Whereas, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, affirmed by a unanimous U. S. Supreme Court, ruled that the Government must facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump and members of his administration, admit than an administrative error was made to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvadoran prison, yet say there is nothing they can do about it, when in reality, they choose to do nothing about it.

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump and his administration have violated the constitutional rights of numerous legal U. S. residents by denying them due process of law in challenging deportation orders.

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump and his administration have targeted legal U. S. residents for deportation due to their political viewpoints, in disregard of the First Amendment.

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump has falsely used the Alien Act of 1798 and other laws to effectuate removal of legal residents, when he should have known that these laws involve wartime measures, not law enforcement measures.

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump stated that he wants to send U. S. citizens to foreign prisons where they would certainly have no due process of law.

Whereas, no one in the U. S. appears to be safe from President Donald J. Trump’s lawless, dictatorial pronouncements that he issues as Executive Orders, which he asserts have force of law when they actually violate the constitutional separation of powers.

Whereas, the Libertarian Party stands for upholding the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and for respecting for the rule of law over dictatorship and tyranny.

And Whereas, President Donald J. Trump took an oath of office to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” with no obvious intention of doing so.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas calls for the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump and his removal from office.
 
I will co-sponsor.

I have seen a lot of agnst and likely confusion in regards to any unifying opposition against this flavor of the uniparty. It is easier when there is a singular item in play.
I feel this is where we, as the bastions of individual liberty, must take our stand and make our voices heard—even when it’s unpopular, and the cost of speaking is high
 
@Ted Brown and sponsors,
While I appreciate the fervor of this resolution, I cannot support it.
The reason Democrats have done nothing is because proposing such an impeachment would make them look ignorant. Moreover, if you make such accusations, you must prove them or it is considered libel. Just because a President says he wants to do something might be grounds for calling him a moron, it is not grounds for impeachment. Executive orders have been used since 1789 by every president, save one, and they have the Constitutional power of law. I think it is abused, but “thems the facts.”
Wven though our emotions about things our presidents have done and about things the current one is doing, we MUST consider and protect the integrity of the Libertarian Party of Texas. This resolution does neither in my opinion.
 
@Jack Westbrook,
I appreciate your concern for the integrity of LPTexas. Reflecting on our past, I’m reminded that this body passed the Gitmo Resolution without objection—standing firmly for due process and constitutional consistency. With that in mind, I wonder if we might view our current concerns through a similar lens, as that is the method I used when considering this.

From what I’ve gathered, executive orders—while constitutionally recognized—are not laws in themselves. They carry authority only when rooted in existing constitutional or statutory frameworks. Like any governmental action, they can be overextended, and when they infringe on rights or defy legal limits, that overreach deserves scrutiny. Whether that rises to the level of impeachment is a matter for discussion, but I believe it’s reasonable to ask the question.

Likewise, my understanding is that resolutions function as formal expressions of position by a body like ours. And in the realm of political speech, particularly regarding public officials, there tends to be a broad margin of protection. That said, I’m open to hearing a more formal legal perspective if one is available—especially if it helps us ground this discussion in shared understanding.

Returning to our Gitmo Resolution, I see meaningful parallels. In both Guantanamo and recent deportation cases, individuals are removed from U.S. jurisdiction without meaningful due process. The mechanisms may differ, but the end result is the same—rights denied and no recourse available. In fact, deportation to a country like El Salvador, where retrieval or remedy is virtually impossible, may present even greater harm.

To me, standing for liberty means holding every president accountable when their actions overstep constitutional bounds, no matter how politically sensitive the moment may be. I hope we can reflect on whether our current approach maintains the same consistency and moral clarity we demonstrated in our stance on Guantanamo.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
That said, I’m open to hearing a more formal legal perspective if one is available—especially if it helps us ground this discussion in shared understanding.
Click to expand...
You may have already seen it, but Dave Roberson wrote up his legal thoughts in opposition to the resolution and posted the statement a couple of places on our Discord server. I make no comment on the strength of his argument, just drawing your attention to the fact it exists in light of your statement that you're open to hearing different perspectives.
 
I am advocating for the resolution because Trump and his people are blatantly violating the Constitution, and the LP needs to get out in front as leaders of the fight for our personal liberties, the rule of law, and due process. It really is one of those "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist..." situations, and we need to speak up. I wish the court case was about one of the Venezuelans who was sent to the same notorious prison, since that makes even less sense than sending a Salvadoran there. No one should be sent to a foreign prison. But we have to work with what we have.
 
I will say this, I have talked to several county chairs and past candidates and all are not on board with this, especially the candidates. The ones I have talked to have said this resolution will significantly hurt any chance of election in the future. The only one who said it wouldn't hurt them is Richard Windman, and he said only because he would make it a point to rebuke the party on this issue. Before people decide how to vote on this, think of the ramifications of this and what it means to party growth and the ability for candidates to get elected.
 
I think resolutions against certain actions of the Trump administration periodically are possibly warranted, but I think calling for impeachment for a president that has already been impeached twice (with the second one being a complete joke/show trial by the Democrats) is going to be somewhat silly, because he may very well take an even worse action next month, and then will we have monthly impeachment resolutions? I think we can certainly continue to speak out against unconstitutional actions by any president, but the impeachment process has devolved into a partisan weapon rather than a measured and serious consideration of “high crimes” against the people. So, while I don’t support the actions of President Trump detailed above, I’m voting no on this particular resolution.
 
Additionally from our TX Supreme court candidate, David Roberson:

This resolution does not accurately portray the events, statements, legal status of Mr. Garcia, nor the proper application of relevant Constitutional law and Federal code. It does not reflect the opinions of all members of the Travis County Libertarian Party.
Making a resolution such as this rife with legal fallacies, bordering on untruthful interpretations of events and statements and with no authority is largely pointless, making Libertarians seem once again as uninformed and childish. We should do better if we are going to throw a punch.
If we want to be relevant at all, our positions must be well grounded and well-stated, not just inflammatory, without legal basis (as confirmed by Mr. Kinzler during the meeting), otherwise we will continue to be seen as a fringe group with little knowledge of how politics or government works, just like protestors at the Texas Capital never accomplish anything. But I suppose that a feeble and false "resolution" is fine for the Travis County Libertarian Social Club.
Are POTUS' actions an aggressive and unempathetic use of power and law, probably. Is it illegal and rising to the standard required for impeachment? Unlikely.
We live in a country of laws. Flailing about and ignoring the rule of law is a fundamental flaw of Libertarians and keeps us on the fringe of the political discussion.
As you may be aware MS13 was declared a foreign terrorist organization this year. As such, Mr. Garcia's association authorized SOS via DHS to revoke any temporary status including "withdrawal of removal" which was the only thing preventing execution of the lawful 2019 deportation order. When Mr. Garcia’s “withdrawal of removal” provision was revoked, and the deportation order, which had already been entered and therefore fulfilled all due process requirements, was executed. Due process was followed to the letter.
As to deportation, the action required by SCOTUS is to "facilitate & effectuate" - which does not authorize superseding another nation's sovereignty over its citizens. This decision was likely entered due to Mr. Garcia having a lawful 2019 deportation order with a "withdrawal of removal" certification - which can be revoked at discretion of SOS via DHS based on new evidence, unlawful actions by the individual, and/or affiliation with foreign terrorist organizations, which MS13 has been so defined as of this year. Hence, Mr. Garcia's "withdrawal of removal" was revoked, and he was then in USA illegally, subject to the 2019 deportation order entered by the Court, which was the most recent effective adjudication of his legal status.
As such, should the Executive Branch bring Mr. Garcia back, under current immigration law, he would immediately be deported to El Salvador where he is a citizen or to another, probably worse, country. This is what the applicable administrative law and code requires. If we don't like the law, we should try to change it, but making a "resolution" that laws were violated when they weren't demonstrates a fundamental comprehension gap.
I hope we can be more well founded and coherent in the future when resolutions are proposed. We can and should do better.
 
Richard Windman moved to Louisiana. What candidates did you speak with? This should be a primary issue for us in 2026. I will certainly be running a vigorously anti-Trump campaign for whatever I run for (maybe U. S. Senator again). We should proudly oppose an authoritarian bully who blithely tramples people's rights. I didn't even mention his disastrous policies on destroying trade and tourism. Sure, we can agree with him on a few personnel and appropriations matters, but those fail to rise to the level of his negatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top