Tuesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin tore into the latest development in Democrats' efforts to undermine President Donald Trump: the announced articles of impeachment.

"The Democrats in the House of Representatives are violating the Constitution," Levin began. "They are not the highest law in the land; the Constitution is the highest law in the land."

Earlier that day, House Democrats announced two articles of impeachment against the president: one for abuse of power in his administration's dealings with Ukrainian officials earlier this year, and another for obstructing Congress' efforts to investigate the Ukraine matter.

"The president of the United States is not obstructing Congress; he is engaging and confronting the Democrats in the House of Representatives," Levin explained. "The president of the United states is not abusing power; there literally isn't a single eyewitness to the president's abuse of power; there literally isn't a shred of reliable, firsthand documentation that the president of the United States has abused power."

Levin also noted how the two charges laid out by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., fall short of the Constitution's clear standards for impeachment, which are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"Try as they might, with professors and lawyers giving each other's opinions, and bureaucrats from the State Department," Levin explained, "try as they might, they couldn't make their case under the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution."

Listen:

If the House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump based on the evidence currently on the record against him, it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says.

"It would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress. The Constitution sets out four criteria for impeaching a president: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," Dershowitz explained to LevinTV host Mark Levin on Sunday night's episode of Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. "Unless one of those criteria is met, Congress does not have the authority to impeach, and if they do, their impeachment would be void. Alexander Hamilton said any act of Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void."

The Harvard legal scholar also took issue with the notion that impeachment is whatever Congress says it is, which has become a popular talking point among Trump's political opponents.

"Congress may be able to get away with it," Dershowitz added, "but this confuses what Congress can get away with with what Congress is sworn to uphold. Any member of Congress who votes to impeach President Trump without a finding that he is guilty of treason, bribery, other high crimes or misdemeanors is violating their oath of office."

Dershowitz also compared House Democrats' search for an impeachable offense to use against the president to the authoritarian behavior of the leaders of the former Soviet Union.

"What they're trying to do is what the KGB under Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, the dictator — I'm not comparing our country to the Soviet Union; I just want to make sure it never becomes anything like that," Dershowitz said. "Beria said to Stalin, 'Show me the man and I'll find you the crime.' And that's what some of the Democrats are doing. They have Trump in their sights, they want to figure out a way of impeaching him, and they're searching for a crime."

Dershowitz went on to warn that Democrats have created "open-ended criteria which bear no relationship to the words of the Constitution itself" and that a potential impeachment of President Trump would set a precedent that will "weaponize impeachment, and the next Democrat who gets elected will be impeached."

Watch:

Monday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin explained how the Democrats in Congress are leading a "runaway" House impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

"You're hearing a lot of things out there, like the Sixth Amendment does not apply to impeachments. Where does it say that in the Constitution?" Levin asked. He explained that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to conduct impeachment against a president without some form of due process.

Levin said House Democrats have rejected the impeachment processes used against former Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton.

"Nowhere did the Framers of the Constitution seek or actually give to any branch of government or any part of any branch of government such enormous power as to overthrow another branch of government without limitation," Levin said.

Listen:

"Every single so-called legal analyst should be condemning what's taking place here, regardless of their view of the president of the United States," Levin said. "This is a rogue, runaway House of Representatives ... under the Democrats that have rejected the entire concept of constitutionalism, have rejected the viewpoints of the Framers, who would never have given illimitable power to the Democrats in the House."

The reason why judges don’t stand for election is because they are supposed to look narrowly at the law, regardless of their political positions or political pressure from elites in media and culture. Yet Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be crafting vital legal opinions based on nothing more than a scorecard of how often each political side wins on a legal question. The latest revelation that Roberts might have changed his mind on the census case, just as he did on Obamacare, should give conservatives pause about putting their faith in a “conservative Supreme Court” rather than delegitimizing the concept of judicial supremacy in the first place.

Joan Biskupic, a CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer, wrote an “exclusive” exposé on Thursday suggesting that initially, “Roberts was ready to rule for [Secretary of Commerce] Ross and the administration. But sometime in the weeks that followed, sources said, Roberts began to waver.”

The reason this report sounds credible is because, as I noted at the time of the ruling, if you read Roberts’ plurality opinion, the legal reasoning sounds like the opposite of his final order, the same phenomenon that gave away his flip in the Obamacare case. Roberts noted that the citizenship question is the essence of the census, has been with us for most of our history, and that nothing in the Constitution, census statute, or even the rule-making process under the APA precluded the president from doing this. But he then concluded that the case should go back to the lower court because he didn’t like the reason the secretary of commerce gave for why the administration chose to reinstate the citizenship question.

The problem with this rationale is that if there is no violation of statute or the Constitution, then how is there a valid case or controversy against the administration, regardless of the reason they give for a policy, especially something as obvious as asking about citizenship on a census? Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, his decision made no sense.

I have noticed in following many other Roberts decisions that he has an iron political motivation to avoid making the Supreme Court look too “conservative” at all costs. Thus, he finds ways to either allow liberal rulings to stand by not taking up appeals or uses tortured logic to join with the liberals on some other cases, but in a convoluted way that he thinks won’t offend his personal jurisprudence. He so badly doesn’t want to be political that he is more political than anyone else.

In the run-up to this past term’s grand finale in June, many court watchers and commentators that I follow were speculating about a “conservative sweep” in the critical cases. But Roberts found ways to side with the leftists. He did so on a number of criminal “rights” cases, executions, a global warming case, and an administrative state case, in addition to flipping on the census.

There is a simple reason why conservatives should win every case at the Supreme Court: The law compels it. Most (but not all) political cases initially brought to court are from the Left. This is because, in general, leftists control the legal profession and more aggressively litigate political issues, but it’s also particularly true today because Trump is president and they will naturally shoot at anything he does in court. Thus, by definition, the cases the Supreme Court gets are appeals from lower court judges who created insane new constitutional rights or adopted novel rules of standing. Sorry to break it to you, Roberts, but you have an obligation to aggressively swat them down categorically.

Most of the court’s cases are not 50-50 equal constitutional questions. They are legally 100-0 no-brainers but nonetheless are viewed, at least by the elites, as political 50-50 issues or as leftist winners. Any judge, regardless of his politics, is obligated to side with the law, even if that means siding against the political outcome of the more popular political movement in Washington 10 out of 10 times.

Take Obama’s DACA amnesty, for example. Among the D.C. elites, 90 percent of Republicans support it. Heck, even Trump supports it. Nonetheless, anyone with any legal honesty would know that this doesn’t even register as a legal case. There is no way, however much you want the result, to say that Obama can take people whom law requires be deported and give them legal documents, much less mandate that Trump must continue this usurpation. You could be a rabid open-borders advocate from a political standpoint, but you’d have to concede that there is no legal justification, much less legal mandate, for Obama’s amnesty.

Boston City Council members are considering giving non-U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, The Hill reported Monday, citing the Associated Press. This would allow participation by “legal permanent residents, visa holders, and residents who are legally residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,” the report said.

Boston City Council President Andrea Campbell, who requested the hearing, has previously rejected the American Founders’ belief that the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

“The purpose of our local government, including the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Advancement, is to strengthen the ability of diverse, cultural, and linguistic communities to play an active role in the economic, civic, social and cultural life of the City of Boston,” Campbell told WCVB in January.

The committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday to further discuss the idea.