参议员里克·斯科特(共和党)提出了一项宪法修正案，旨在增加众议院弹劾一名公职人员的难度。一天前，在参议院弹劾唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统的审判中，他投票宣布无罪。
反对党的参议员被提议的修改弹劾规则的立法，同时谴责最近针对唐纳德·特朗普总统的弹劾程序中的党派政治。
周三，特朗普在参议院的一次主要是党派投票中被判无罪，米特·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)是唯一投票支持总统免职的共和党人。在共和党参议员投票阻止证人出庭后，许多民主党人认为审判是不公平的“骗局”。在审判之前，共和党人抱怨过众议院的程序，坚称不公平的党派政治导致了特朗普在12月18日被弹劾。
共和党参议员里克·斯科特(Rick Scott)周四提出了一项宪法修正案，旨在将弹劾公职人员的门槛从简单多数提高到60%的绝对多数。斯科特认为修正案是必要的，因为民主党人通过弹劾特朗普进行了一场“党派之争”。
斯科特在一份声明中说:“过去几个月来，南希·佩洛西和众议院民主党人对弹劾程序的党派猜谜显示，我们的国父们的恐惧已经被意识到。”声明。"他们警告说，弹劾可能被党派行为者用作党派工具。"
“不管参议院审判的结果如何，民主党人利用弹劾程序作为伤害特朗普总统的工具，”斯科特继续说道。“这是一个危险的先例，过程必须改变。”
宪法修正案获得通过的可能性很小，在国会两院都有三分之二的绝对多数，并且至少需要38个州的批准。最后获得批准的是27项th处理国会薪资规则的修正案。它于1992年成为《宪法》的一部分，比《宪法》出台早了200多年。
在特朗普的审判于周三结束前不久，参议员杰夫·默克莱(民主党参议员)。)宣布他将很快引入立法，旨在改变未来弹劾审判中的参议院规则。改变参议院规则不需要宪法修正案。
提议的修改将要求传唤证人，并在弹劾审判中引入证据。特朗普弹劾案是历史上首次不允许证人作证，这是导致许多民主党人指责共和党人进行党派“掩盖”的一个因素
“没有证人和文件的审判不是公正和全面的审判——这是一种掩饰，”默克莱在一份声明中说新闻稿。“在审判过程中，是否应该考虑来自相关证人和文件的信息，绝不应该是一个党派问题。”
“这就是为什么，在审判结束后，我将提出立法，确保双方有权传唤相关证人，并在未来的弹劾审判中提出相关证据，”他补充说。
SENATORS PROPOSE NEW IMPEACHMENT RULES REQUIRING SUPERMAJORITY IN HOUSE, WITNESS TESTIMONY IN SENATE
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) proposed a constitutional amendment designed to make it more difficult for the House to impeach a public official, one day after voting to acquit in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Senators from opposing political parties proposed legislation to change rules governing impeachment, while decrying partisan politics in play during recent impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Trump was acquitted in the Senate Wednesday on a largely partisan vote, with Sen. Mitt Romney being the only Republican to vote for the president's removal. A number of Democrats deemed the trial an unfair "sham" after GOP senators voted to block witnesses at the trial. Prior to the trial, Republicans had complained about the House proceedings, insisting unfair partisan politics led to Trump's impeachment on December 18.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced a Constitutional amendment Thursday that is designed to raise the threshold required to impeach a public official from a simple majority to a supermajority of 60 percent. Scott suggested the amendment was needed because Democrats had conducted a "partisan charade" by impeaching Trump.
"The partisan charade Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats made of this impeachment process over the last few months shows that the fears of our Founding Fathers were realized," said Scott in a statement. "They warned that impeachment could be used as a partisan tool by partisan actors."
"The Democrats used the impeachment process as a tool to hurt President Trump, regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial," Scott continued. "It's a dangerous precedent and the process has to change."
The likelihood of a constitutional amendment succeeding is low, with a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by at least 38 states required. The last to be successfully ratified was the 27th amendment, which deals with Congressional salary rules. It became part of the Constitution in 1992, over 200 years after it was introduced.
Shortly before the Trump trial ended on Wednesday, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) announced that he would soon be introducing legislation designed to alter Senate rules in future impeachment trials. Changing Senate rules would not require a Constitutional amendment.
The proposed change would mandate the calling of witnesses and introduction of evidence in impeachment trials. The Trump impeachment trial was the first in history where witnesses were not allowed, which was one factor that led many Democrats to accuse Republicans of a partisan "cover-up."
"A trial without witnesses and documents is not a fair and full trial – it's a cover-up," Merkley said in a press release. "Whether information from relevant witnesses and documents should be considered in the course of a trial should never be a partisan question."
"That's why, following the conclusion of this trial, I will be introducing legislation that would ensure the right of both sides to call relevant witnesses and introduce relevant evidence in any future impeachment trial," he added.
