Christmas is a week away. The season of light calls out for some lighter, upbeat, healing fare. However, the news cycle doesn’t always cooperate with the holiday calendar.

The nation finds itself racked by a major debate over the impeachment of the president. That process is likely to reach one key milestone in the coming hours with a vote by the House of Representatives on two articles of impeachment.

To be a political commentator and not address the elephant in the room is to miss the mark. As much as we might yearn for an interlude of “Silent Night,” this remains a moment of political noise, bombast and combativeness.

Amped-up partisans on both sides of this debate might be disappointed, but regular readers will not be surprised that my views on impeachment are neither black nor white.

In a nutshell, impeachment may well be a political loser for those pushing it, primarily Democrats. Despite that distinct possibility, I have concluded that it is a constitutional imperative.

There is no shortage of political rationale to back away from this brink. The effort is almost certain to fail, save for the dropping of another very large, size 12 presidential shoe. It allows President Trump to reinforce his already animated, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil base and campaign in ensuing months as the vindicated, conquering hero. It turns the partisan discord meter up another several degrees.

On the Democratic side, it temporarily drowns out other issues of far more salience to a broad swath of voters. It reeks of over-eagerness and excessive glee given the appearance many Democrats have contributed to in looking for any excuse for impeachment from day-one. And one other not-minor detail: Any discussion of what went down with respect to Ukraine also ends up diminishing the putative Democratic frontrunner, no ordinary Joe.

And yet. Sometimes, including in this instance, life imposes inconvenient burdens.

Yes, many avid Democrats may be guilty of over-eagerness; of talking openly of impeachment as a remedy ever since the November night that glass ceiling came crashing down on Hillary Clinton. But there’s a flip side to that equation. Namely, that knowing the scrutiny, a more prudent politician might have been more careful in his conduct. He might, just might, have toed the line in terms of propriety, caution and some minimal norms.

Ultimately, such considerations are simply prologue. What’s at the heart of this is the plot; what actually transpired. Even in this era, facts matter.

No sentient person honestly believes that Trump’s infamous phone call with the newly-elected Ukranian leader was “perfect.” Why does our president insult us by insisting on such nonsense? Why can’t he even acknowledge the suspect tone, much less show the slightest bit of contrition?

Obviously, imperfection is a long ways from impeachable. But this phone call and related events went far beyond merely warped and faulty. Reprehensible would be the more apt word.

To attempt a simple formulation, if that call was not an attempt by President Trump to use congressionally-approved military dollars to leverage a foreign power to do the dirty work of sleuthing for the sole purpose of damaging a domestic political rival, then what was it? Second, if such conduct does not meet the founders’ careful intentions with respect to an impeachable offense, then what does?

The House Judiciary Committee has approved two articles of impeachment and the full House is now poised to do the same. Though I am anything but fan or loyalist of House Democratic leadership, I’d submit that they got it right in picking these two articles and in not making it broader with a kitchen sink full of charges.

The first article, under the heading of “Abuse of Power,” speaks for itself. If any normal citizen utilized such tactics in their workplace, they would be summarily dismissed. And would consider himself or herself lucky not sit for a spell inside a jail cell after a conviction for criminal bribery. Why should standards be lower for the President of the United States than for some mid-level manager or construction foreman or school principal?

From my vantage point, the second article, while less discussed, is equally or more important. The Constitution is clear in granting Congress the power of impeachment. The historical record also shows that this was the subject of considerable discussion by the founders. It was included as another check and balance; and a further safeguard against a lawless, unaccountable ruler.

In past impeachments, there has been a tension between Congress and the executive over what information might be available. Claims of “executive privilege” have been a point of contention. But the Trumpian approach here is of a wholly different dimension. It is based not on the protection of this or that document, but on an all-out rejection of the House’s legitimate constitutional authority.

That is an issue more consequential than a presidential phone call or the use of the office for self-serving political antics. Over decades, presidential power has tended to expand as legislative power has withered. If President Trump’s blatant and total stiff-arm of Congress is allowed to stand, that dangerous trend will become further entrenched to the lasting detriment of both parties and any political equilibrium that might remain.

Of course, any sane and balanced person wishes this was otherwise. For one, I wish we did not live in such rancorous, polarized, even hateful times. That our president could master the art of being a policy disruptor while honoring the Constitution and without being a consummate divider. And that this process of holding him to account did not break along such partisan lines which serves only to add fuel to the fiery animus.

It is our sad lot to deal with the imperfection in an imperfect world. An impeachment trial could accrue to the president’s political benefit (see Clinton, Bill). But no other response seems now quite commensurate with the offense. However this plays out, the Constitution begs us to move forward with this process of accountability.

Harkening back to the lyrics of that Christmas carol, few Americans, at least those paying attention, are sleeping these days, “In heavenly peace.” Even fewer would observe that, “All is calm, all is bright.”

May your holidays be joyous in spite of this mess of our creation.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. His column appears every Wednesday in ColoradoPolitics. Reach him at EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann