The U.S. Constitution provides that the Senate shall have the Sole Power to Try All Impeachments, but No Person shall be Convicted without the Concurrence of Two-Thirds of the Members Present (Article I, section 3). The President, Vice President, and All Civil Officers of the U.S. are subject to Impeachment.
In Impeachment Proceedings, the House of Representatives Charges an Official of the Federal Government by Approving, by Majority Vote, Articles of Impeachment. Then a Committee of Representatives, called “Managers,” Acts as Prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate Sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which Senators consider Evidence, Hear Witnesses, and Vote to Acquit or Convict the Impeached Official. In the Case of Presidential Impeachment Trials, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Presides. For All other Officials, the Vice President Presides. A Problem will arise if the Vice President is Impeached and was Not Addressed in the Constitution.
The Constitution Requires a Two-Thirds Vote of the Senate to Convict, and the Penalty for an Impeached Official upon Conviction is Removal from Office. The Second Senate Vote can also Disqualified such Officials from Holding Public Offices in the Future. This is a Majority Vote and there is No Appeal. Since 1789, about Half of Senate Impeachment Trials have Resulted in Conviction and Removal from Office. There is also the possibility of Criminal Trials after Removal from Office or Leaving Office. Any Criminal Article of Impeachment can Not be Pardoned and there is No Double Jeopardy, so either Federal or Civil Court Trials are Possible.
In The Federalist, No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that Impeachment is "a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men" accused of Violating the “public trust.” Hamilton and his Colleagues at the Constitutional Convention knew that the History of Impeachment as a Constitutional Process dated from 14th-Century England, when the Fledgling Parliament sought to make the King's Advisers Accountable.
In the Early Proposals, the President and other Officials could be Removed on Impeachment and Conviction for "Corrupt Conduct," or for "Malpractice or Neglect of Duty." Later, the Wording was Changed to "Treason, Bribery, or Corruption," and then to "Treason or Bribery" alone. Contending that "Treason or Bribery" was too Narrow a Definition, George Mason Proposed adding "Mal-Administration" but Switched to "Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors Against the State" when Madison commented that "Mal-Administration" was Too Broad. A Final Revision defined Impeachable Offenses as "Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
While the Framers very clearly Envisaged the Occasional Necessity of initiating Impeachment Proceedings, they put in place only a very General Framework to Guide Future Action. Perhaps most Important, they did Not clearly Define what they meant by “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Nevertheless, the Framers Reshaped a Tool the English Parliament used to Curb Kings and Punish Placemen into a Powerful Legislative Check upon Executive and Judicial Wrongdoing.
In the American Version of Impeachment, the Power of the English House of Commons to Impeach Anyone, for Almost Any Alleged Offense, was Restrained, and the Threat of Death upon Conviction was Lifted.
Since 1789, One Principal Question has Persisted, how to Define “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Were Misdemeanors Lesser Crimes, or merely Misconducts? Did a High Crime or Misdemeanor have to be a Violation of Written Law? In an Unsuccessful attempt to Impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." This Constitutional Phrase remains a Subject of Continuing Debate, pitting those who view Impeachment as a Response to an Official’s Perceived Violation of the Public Trust against those who regard Impeachment as being Limited to Indictable Offenses.
During the Summer of 1974, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, the Senate Prepared for the Possibility of a Presidential Impeachment Trial, as the House of Representatives moved ever Closer to Impeaching President Richard Nixon. In July, the Senate Adopted a Resolution Directing the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to Review the Existing Impeachment Rules and Precedents, and Recommend Revisions. The Committee, aided by Senate Parliamentarian Floyd Riddick, devoted Long Hours to the Senate’s Constitutional Role in Impeachment Proceedings. The Committee was Meeting on August 8th, 1974, when President Nixon Announced that he would Resign. Despite this Unprecedented Event, the Panel continued with its Work under a Mandate from the Senate to File a Report by September 1st. The Report contained Recommendations that were Primarily Technical Changes in the Rules that had been Adopted in 1868 for the Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson. With the Resignation of President Nixon, No further Action was taken.
The Committee’s Recommendations were Revised in 1986, however, and Informed the Debates on how to Conduct the Trials of Three Federal Judges between 1986 and 1989. The Impeachment of Harry E. Claiborne in 1986 finally put into Action Rule XI, and the Senate established a Special Trial Committee to hear Evidence and Report to the Full Senate.
Likewise, Senate Trial Committees considered Evidence in the Cases of Alcee Hastings (1989), Walter Nixon, Jr. (1989), and G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (2010), All of whom were Convicted and Removed from Office. Nixon Challenged the Use of an Impeachment Committee on Constitutional Grounds. In 1993, in the Case Nixon v. United States, the Supreme Court Upheld the Senate’s Right to Determine its Own Procedures, including the Use of a Trial Committee.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
