article

Emma Zuzunaga – Article III, Section 3

Video

Written Component

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason, as well as the criteria for convicting people of treason, who decides the punishment for treason, and what punishment for treason is prohibited. Treason against the United States is defined as being one of two things, either levying war against, or offering aid and comfort to the enemies of, the United States. To be convicted of treason, two witnesses must give testament to witnessing the same act, or the accused must confess in court. Once convicted, the constitution says it is the job of Congress to decide the punishment of the criminal; however, Congress is not allowed to prohibit the descendants of the criminal from inheriting property from them after their death. 

This clause was created to establish a concrete definition of treason to prevent the government and politicians from using treason accusations to repress and silence political beliefs that did not align with their own. In Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, one of the founding fathers, Maddison discusses the potential harms of faction, especially to a young nation. This sentiment was likely reflected in the writing of the treason clause, which prevents powerful or ruling factions from shutting down those who do not agree with them, which could lead to social unrest. 

The motivation for the treason clause’s creation, the desire to prevent dominant parties from oppressing others and politically isolating them, also reflects the french revolution. The third estate at the estates general was oppressed by the first and second estates because they were consistently outvoted, and were politically isolated because they were eventually locked out of the room as punishment for attempting to stand up for themselves and their people. This led to an extremely violent revolution, which could have influenced the framers to try to prevent similar infighting through this clause. 

The last line of this clause directly opposed Britain’s law, which prohibited the descendants of traitors from inheriting their belongings. 

The 1945 Cramer v. United States case properly illustrates the most controversial aspect of this clause. Cramer v. United States case ruled that mentally adhering to America’s enemies was not the same as offering them aid and comfort, and so that was not given, no treason was committed. On the opposing side of this case, the Government side of the court, who lost, argued that offering America’s enemies aid and comfort should be interpreted loosely to provide a more applicable version of the law which could be used during times of war. Modern scholars argue that the restraints the clause illustrates actually prevent traitors from being charged with treason on technicalities, and treason is now very difficult to prove. 

I believe that the Government’s interpretation of the treason clause is more compelling and should be the interpretation we use because it makes the law much more applicable in a modern context. The Constitution should be a living document, and our definition of treason should be different than the framers of the Constitution. 

Ongoing Debate with Impeachment, Article II Section IV – Holden MacDougall

Video

Written Component

Amendment II Section IV, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The American Revolution resolved in a separation from Britain and gave rise to the need for a new governmental structure without a monarch. In an attempt to create a decentralized government with separate and interdependent powers, the framers viewed it as necessary to give congress the power of impeachment. It is a part of the system of checks and balances.

This clause is responding to fears of unchecked and tyrannical power in the government, as well as ideas brought about by the absolutist monarchy french revolution. It also echoes theories of John Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. The commonly understood meaning of the impeachment clause is that a government official of the United States (typically a federal judge, President, or Vice President.) can be impeached and removed from office if convicted of committing a serious crime and/or abuse of office. Various interpretations of the impeachment clause arise when one considers the type of crime being committed, and whether that crime relates to the public office or private life of the accused person.

An interpretation that would make impeachment a over powerful political weapon is if impeachment concerned both the public and private life of a government official, and if any forms of misconduct or misbehavior were accepted as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. A narrower interpretation considers only treason, bribery, and crimes committed relating to a government official’s public office to be an impeachable offense. Some scholars believe that a broad interpretation of the impeachment power would allow a single political party or opponent to potentially abuse this power to eliminate select people  by convicting them of vague forms of misconduct.

This would make impeachment also a very powerful tool for Congress ( more specifically the senate, which has the power to try all impeachments). The case, Nixon v. United States (1993), involved the debate over impeachment and the power it gives to the Senate. The ruling affirms that impeachment power is solely assigned to the Senate and House of Representatives. This case relates to the debate over the interpretation of  “high crimes and misdemeanors” and how much power this phrase could give to those in the Senate. Since Nixon v. United States deemed Senate impeachment trials ‘non-justiciable’, meaning that they are not able to be resolved through law alone, it indicates that impeachment trials concern acts that do not fall under the law, rather are acts of misconduct, which highlights the importance of defining what acts are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

This provision connects to the writings of Montesquieu, who argued for separation of powers in government, because the impeachment power is part of a system of checks and balances that is core to the U.S. constitution, and to Rousseau, who expressed that government should serve the general will of the people, because impeachment concerns those whom the people elect the government. I find the interpretation that ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ mentioned article II, section IV only concern matters of public office that harm the well-being of the citizens more persuasive than impeachment on the grounds of a matter of private life because, like with any job, a person is typically fired based acts committed and relating to the workplace that affects their job and the company, rather than because of acts associated with one’s private life.

I would advocate amending the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. This area is the primary source of divergent interpretations of this clause because of its vagueness, so amending it would help to clarify the types of crimes worthy of impeachment.

Shreyas Rajaram Article V

Video

Written Component

Article Five of the Constitution is one of the most crucial, as it provides a framework for future constitutional changes. Recognizing that the values of American citizens would evolve over time, the framers acknowledged the need to adapt outdated sections of the Constitution to reflect these shifting priorities. Article Five enables the Constitution to be amended, therefore ensuring its relevance to the changing values of America.

The amendment ratification process itself requires two key steps: proposal and ratification. To propose an amendment, a two-thirds majority vote is needed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, this can be achieved through a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once an amendment has been proposed, it must be ratified by a three-quarter majority of state legislatures or state conventions.

This process ensures that amendments reflect the voice of the people and maintain a balance between federal and state authorities.   Furthermore, Article Five also appeased the Anti-Federalists, who advocated for greater rights for the common people. Although ratifying an amendment is a complex process that requires an overwhelming majority of support, the power to amend the Constitution ultimately rests with the people, as expressed through their elected officials. Notably, only twenty-seven amendments have been ratified since the inception of the Constitution.

The first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, establish and protect ten fundamental rights of the American people, including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Other amendments to the Constitution mark pivotal inflection points in the nation’s history, such as women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery.   

Despite its significant role in empowering citizens, Article Five has sparked many controversies and debates. One area of contention has been whether there should be a time limit on the amendment ratification process. Amendment 27 took over 200 years to reach the required three-quarter majority support from state legislatures, prompting Congress to establish an unofficial time limit of seven years for future amendments.

This time limit ensures that amendments do not remain open indefinitely. Scholars have also argued over the stringent nature of the amendment ratification process. While some, such as former federal judge Malcolm Wilkey, believe that the amendment process is overly influenced by the political goals of Congress members, others assert that the rigid system protects the amendment process from political influence by restricting amendments to those supported by the majority of Americans.   

Article Five plays a critical role in granting power to citizens and ensuring that public opinion is represented within the Constitution. In accordance with these values, I would propose a modification to the amendment process, where the current state legislatures’ voting system is replaced by a more democratic referendum system. The requirement of a three-quarter majority from state legislatures to ratify an amendment was appropriate at a time when America was establishing its identity and uniting states with varying economic needs.

In the present day, centuries after the Constitution’s drafting, the priorities of state and federal governments have changed. Rather than federal governments working to arrange compromises between states, state governments work towards the prosperity of the nation as a whole. As a result, the need for states to compromise has become largely insignificant. For this reason, I believe the amendment process should incorporate a vote more representative of nationwide opinion rather than individual states’ perspectives. 

Alpha Conteh – Article 2

Video

Written Component

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a balanced and effective system of government, which included the need for a strong executive branch. The failures of the Articles of Confederation, the previous governing document, highlighted the necessity for more centralized authority and a clear delineation of powers.

The framers recognized the importance of having an executive to provide leadership, represent the country both domestically and internationally, and enforce the laws enacted by the legislative branch. By outlining the President’s role, powers, and the process for selecting the President, the framers aimed to strike a balance between an effective executive and protecting against potential abuses of power. The second article aimed to establish a presidency capable of providing strong leadership and addressing the nation’s needs while being accountable to the people and limited by the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution.

This article outlines the President’s responsibilities as the head of state, commander-in-chief, and chief diplomat. Additionally, it highlights the process for electing the President through the Electoral College and sets the criteria for holding the office. Overall, it establishes the framework for a strong executive branch of the federal government and provides a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. By saying, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”, the framers give lots of room for interpretation on what is a high Crime and Misdemeanors.

The interpretation of the provision outlined in the second article of the United States Constitution, particularly regarding the powers and limitations of the President, has been subject to divergent interpretations. They often point to historical precedents, such as the actions of past Presidents, and argue that a strong executive is necessary for effective governance. On the other hand, scholars advocating for a more limited interpretation contend that the Constitution grants specific powers to the President, with checks and balances provided by the other branches of government. They emphasize the importance of adhering strictly to the language and intent of the Constitution.

Article Two of the United States Constitution holds importance as it establishes the executive branch of the federal government. It outlines the powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the President, who serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief. The significance of Article Two lies in its role in balancing power and providing a framework for effective governance. It ensures that there is a single executive to lead the nation, execute laws, and represent the United States both domestically and internationally. 

Angelina Chu – Article 3, Section 1 (Judicial Branch)

Video

Written Component

Some framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government could not be successful without a judicial system to enforce such laws. This is rooted in the issues of the Articles of Confederation (1777) due to a weak central government, leading to a lack of unity among the states. One of the main flaws of the Articles was that it failed to enforce the laws that it preached. The Constitution strives to instill the unity that the Articles lacked by enforcing its unifying principles through the judicial system.
The judicial system is one of the three branches of the United States government. The common interpretation of Article 3 is that it unifies the states under one judicial system and Supreme Court.

In particular, Section 1 of Article 3 establishes this Supreme Court as the highest court in the judicial system, with inferior courts established by Congress when necessary. It also strives to enforce the integrity of the judicial system by stating that judges may keep such positions for the rest of their lives as long as they maintain “good behavior.” By instilling the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, Section 1 grants judges the ability to interpret the law. This strengthens the federal government as the Judicial branch can review governmental affairs, helping to check and balance the other two branches of government.


Although this interpretation of Article 3, Section 1 may be common, historical scholars have diverged in their understandings of the section. In Not Your Founding Fathers’ Judiciary, scholar David A. Strauss argues that the judicial system does not function in the way the founding fathers intended, with state courts taking on more importance than the Supreme Court. Although Section 1 puts emphasis on how the states are united under one Supreme Court, Strauss conveys that with the increasing number of crimes today, most cases do not have a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, with justice being carried out in state courts instead. On the other hand, academic Richard W. Garnett conveyed his argument in the article The “Judicial Power” and the Power of Judicial Review where he expresses the importance of judicial review, the court’s power to interpret and enforce the law.

Through its ability to deem governmental actions constitutional, Garnett presents that the judicial branch checks and balances the Executive and Legislative branches and thereby upholds the Constitution. The importance of judicial review is also demonstrated in Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, legitimatizing the Supreme Court’s right to rule laws as constitutional.
As Garnett highlights, Section 1’s establishment of the Supreme Court and judicial review helps to check and balance the other branches of the government.

This idea can be traced back to Montesquieu’s Enlightenment philosophy of the separation of powers. As Montesquieu details in his 1748 work, The Spirit of Laws, he proposes that the government must not be concentrated and instead split up into separate branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to check and balance the others, preventing tyranny and abuse of power. Article 3, the judicial branch, plays an imperative role in carrying out the separation of powers, upholding the integrity of the Constitution. Although the judicial system is a necessity to the Constitution, one possible amendment would be to classify “good behavior.” As behaving without “good behavior” is the only condition under which a judge would no longer be deemed fit for the job, defining what such behavior is would warrant that all judges are held to a specific, uniform standard and therefore ensure the Constitution’s integrity.

Sophie Kim-Yatter: Article V

Video

Written Component

Article V of the US Constitution proposes the amendment process. This was a vital part of the Constitution because people likely would have hated being unable to change the ways of the government and society in any way, especially as time progressed.

Despite not yet being used, the convention method for amendments was an essential part to the original Constitution. The drafters recognized that the congressional method was controlled completely by the federal government; therefore, it could not be relied on to keep the federal government in check. Thus, the convention method was included as it largely bypasses the federal government, which demonstrates more appeal to anti-federalists, who would have been against complete federal government power. 

Two main parts compose Article V. First the methods of amendment are presented, the first being congressional proposal, and the second being by convention. For the first, if ⅔ of each house of congress approves the proposed amendment, it then gets sent to the states. ¾ of the states must ratify the amendment in order to be added to the Constitution. The second method is the convention method, where if ⅔ of the states agree, a convention is called for proposing amendments. Once an amendment is developed and approved by the convention, it is then sent back to the states, where, as with the first method, ¾ of the states must ratify. The second part to this article discusses the two ways an amendment can be ratified, chosen by congress. Either state legislatures decide or states can call for a convention to decide whether or not to ratify. 

The first of two major matters of debate argues that amendments are not the most successful way to implement constitutional change. Backed up with evidence of specific amendments and bills, it is clear that the change amendments propose materializes despite ratification or lack thereof. The second matter of debate is that people are not following the Constitution by its original meaning (originalism). “Originalists,” per se, believe that all the problems with the amendment process, specifically discussing bias towards federal government and difficulty enacting amendments, would be eliminated if everyone stuck to the “original” meaning of the Constitution. 

The first matter of debate is the more persuasive of the two. I feel that the first had much more detailed evidence to prove its claim, mentioning several specific amendments and acts that support. The originalism claim (2) provides decent reasoning, but in the end, the point itself was not strong enough. It states that if the original meaning of the Constitution was followed, major problems would be solved. But it is highly unlikely that this would actually eliminate these issues, as more problems are likely to stem from this other “original” interpretation. 

The supreme court case of Coleman v. Miller discussed Article V, where Coleman’s side argued that a state can not ratify an amendment after an unreasonable amount of time has passed, nor if they had already rejected the amendment, both of which were done by the Kansas state legislature. The final decision of the case deemed that there is nothing in Article V that prevents ratification after rejection, nor does an amendment lose vitality over time. 

Based on the Coleman v. Miller case, along with matters of debate, Article V clearly has issues with specificity. I believe that it would be beneficial to amend this article in order to include more details about uncertainties, such as how long an amendment may remain active for, in order to avoid further confusion regarding this essential section of the Constitution. 

Jacob Sorett – Article 1 Section 4 The Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause was made to solely manage the election of the House and Senate, not the president. According to, Micheal T. Morley and Franita Tolson, it was written to ensure that all states hold elections for Congress and that their procedures for said elections are fair.

 The main purpose of the text is to balance the power of the state and of Congress in voting for representatives. More specifically, the clause is known to establish that each state can set its own conditions in which voting takes place, but that these conditions can be lawfully changed by Congress. 

Even with a common interpretation of the election clause, there are several divergent perspectives about its contents. An example of the above would be how some states more widely distribute power and create “independent redistricting commissions”. This was done in order to prevent the division of voters and keep current members of Congress in their offices. This viewpoint includes the idea of “independent redistricting commissions” being ideal for the Elections Clause for it displays that there is a fairer way to hold elections than what the clause outlines. An example specifically in the court would be Cook v. Gralike. Don Gralike came before the court and argued for the Congressional Term Limit Amendment. It permitted for warnings to be written next to the names of previously elected representatives who opposed Congressional term limits.

However, the supreme court declared that the Elections Clause prevents the state from doing so due to how the amendment is clearly biased towards candidates that support term limits. This serves as a perfect example of different interpretations of the election clause. From the perspective of the court, the Elections Clause should protect members of Congress by preventing the state from going against officials opposing term limits. From the perspective of Don Gralike, the clause allows for the state to still express the manner in which the process is done, and this manner he believes should include warnings next to candidates’ names.

Another case where the Elections Clause was debated was U.S. Term Limits, Inc, v. Thornton. The side of Thorton argued that states should be able to neglect to print the names of candidates who had served in Congress for three terms. Again the supreme court prevented this and declared that the Elections Clause requires all candidates to be displayed on ballots. The supreme court had yet again ruled in favor of Congress and its present officers, once again displaying the court’s interpretation of the clause. 

I find the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the election clause to be more reasonable and persuasive. The Elections Clause’s ultimate goal is to give Congress the power to keep the state in check, preventing unfair and corrupt voting procedures. With more lenient interpretations this is not the case, and this includes arguments such as the one in Cook v. Gralike. States shouldn’t be allowed to make such changes that are clearly in favor of specific candidates, and I think that the view of the supreme court entails this point. If I were to amend this clause, I would allow Congress to alter where the votes are made, as the Elections Clause currently bands this. The state could manage to make change the voting turnout by setting the location of the ballots to specific places. For example, if the state of New York changed all of its ballot locations to extremely far upstate, that would not reflect the vast majority of New York’s votes. This is because most residents don’t live upstate. I think Congress should be able to regulate this to ensure the right amount of voter turnout. 

Daya: Article 3 Section 3 The Treason Clause

Video

Written Component

 

The treason clause is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. It was not included to insure loyalty of citizens, but rather was included as a precautionary measure to prevent against the government’s misuse of treason prosecutions to stifle legitimate political opposition. By specifying the terms necessary for one to be convicted of treason, trials were focused on the narrowly defined terms of treason and prevented the punishment of cases without sufficient evidence.

The Treason Clause states that treason can only be prosecuted under two circumstances: levying war against the United States or providing enemies with aid and support. In order for an individual to be convicted, there must be testimony from two witnesses of the overt offense or a confession in open court. Additionally, the clause states that Congress is responsible for determining the punishment for treason while also saying that the punishment cannot extend beyond the convicted person’s life. This means that there can be no forfeiture of wealth and property.

In 1807 a case called Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout emerged. The case focused around an alleged plot by former Vice President Aaron Burr and two associates to overthrow the government in New Orleans. However, due to the strict definition of treason, they were not convicted. The Supreme Court decided that conspiring to levy war, such as drawing plans, recruiting troops, and finding maps, was different than having a group of people ready to commit the treasonous act. 

In another treason case, Cramer v the United States in 1954, the defendant, Cramer, was prosecuted for allegedly helping a Nazi soldier who had snuck into America during World War II. The court decided that in the case, there was both concrete action and intent to betray the nation, and therefore Cramer was convicted. This set the bar very high for other treason cases because it required both evident action and intent to betray the nation. In this case, the government attempted to argue that the Treason Clause should be interpreted leniently for wartime use. The court held true to the Framers’ beliefs and dismissed the idea of leniency during wartime, saying that treason cannot be the primary legal weapon to protect national security. While Cramer was convicted for treason, the court told the government that they could pursue other charges such as the  violation of the Espionage act, or the Trading with the Enemy Act without having to go through the specific Treason Clause. This ruling made it much harder to convict someone for treason in the future as there had to be evidence of support for the enemy and intention to betray the nation.

This begs the question, is the Treason Clause still relevant. Firstly, someone can still commit treason, which was the case for Adam Gadahn who was indicted for treason in 2006. Secondly, the Treason Clause represents the original values of the Framers. The strict procedure to convict someone is a reminder that the Framers did not want the government to suppress political opposition with threats of treason and wanted to safeguard individual rights. In America, the rise of the public sphere meant that different political ideas were freely circulating. In addition, today, with the widespread usage of social media, many political ideologies are discussed frequently. In both of these cases, the Framers’ original intentions prevent these discussions from having any repercussions.

Article IV: The Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause (Article IV) responds to and prevents oppressive types of governments like monarchies. The Guarantee Clause reflects the framers’ aim to ensure democratic principles in the United States and maintain a representative government in each state. The Guarantee Clause states that every state must have a republican form of government. This ensures that no state inflicts a monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or stratocracy. The clause does not detail the conditions of the republican government (specifically regarding voting requirements), but it does guarantee federal protection to all states from foreign invasions and domestic violence. 

Some scholars interpret this clause as a finite check on the federal government’s interference with the states’ autonomy and, specifically, enabled each state to set appropriate requirements for state and local elections. Others interpret this provision to explain that the federal government can interfere with states’ voting requirements if the conditions disenfranchise part of their population. Scholars argue that post Reconstruction Era, specifically in places where African American’s made up at least 40% of the population, the Guarantee Clause was not upheld, disenfranchising African Americans.    

Texas v. White (1891) provides some context for this interpretation, as the ruling dictated that the newly freed African Americans would become part of the people; thus, they were included in the republic and entitled to vote. Subsequently, Chin utilizes Ratliff v. Beale, which explained how and why Mississippi disenfranchised African Americans.

They declared that the newly enfranchised race (who were greater in numbers) lacked the intelligence and governmental instinct to complete these public services. This acknowledges Mississippi’s “problem” because African Americans comprised most of the population. Furthermore, the elected government personnel would not reflect who the white people desired to hold power in the state. By claiming that Black people did not have sufficient intelligence, the Mississippi Constitutional Convention addressed this problem by creating literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting.

With these two cases in mind, African Americans, who made up the majority of the population, did not vote; thus, allowing Mississippi and other former Confederate states to run on the minority vote. Finally, in United States v. Mississippi (1965), the United States acknowledges the systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans and, ergo, states running on the minority vote.

The Supreme Court case Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) ruled that Congress could change the age requirement only for federal elections, not state or local ones, as it was beyond Congress’s authority. This ruling supports interpretations regarding states’ autonomy as it prevented the federal government from impeding Oregon’s rights.

Although the 24th Amendment (1964) abolished literacy tests and polling taxes, Chin’s claim extrapolates to current forms of disenfranchisement like gerrymandering. It provokes readers to question if the federal government’s allowance of states’ gerrymandering violates the Guarantee Clause. The Guarantee Clause reflects Lockean ideas of popular sovereignty in that each state runs on a republican form of government where the people have control through elections. Similarly, the provision incorporates Rousseau’s idea of the general will, as the clause guarantees that states govern according to the majority vote.

Elsa Dees- Article II: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 delineates the impeachment terms for the president, vice president and other civil officers of the United States. This impeachment clause stems from both English Parliamentary practice and American Colonial Law. In Britain, Parliament had the ability to challenge the power of the crown, ministers, and the king’s favorites due to political offenses. The colonies also had their own impeachment procedures, which held officials accountable for political crimes. In both cases, impeachment proceedings were part of a process that separated powers and allowed the legislative branch to check the executive, counteracting tyranny. (1)

The common interpretation of Article II, Section 4 is that all federal officials can be tried, impeached, and removed from office for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This provision can be interpreted in divergent ways because of the vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which provides latitude for the House to determine what offenses can be considered grounds for impeachment. While this clause does not allow the House to impeach an official for incompetence, it provides the House with great flexibility to impeach a federal official for a crime or abuse of power.

The impeachment process first begins when the House conducts an impeachment inquiry. Thereafter, the House must pass, by simple majority, the articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegations against the official. If the House passes the articles, the federal official is considered impeached. The Senate then conducts the trial of the impeached official. If supported by two-thirds of the Senate, the official is convicted and removed from office. (2)

Over the course of U.S. history, a very small number of government officials have been impeached and a much smaller number have been convicted and removed from office. Most officials under scrutiny have decided to voluntarily resign from their positions or have been removed by their superiors. Three presidents – Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump – have been impeached by the House, with Trump twice, but none have been convicted by the Senate. In late 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury during an investigation about pre-presidency financial deals and obstruction of justice. During the Senate trial, numerous senators raised questions about whether President Clinton’s actions were “high crimes and misdemeanors.” President Clinton was ultimately not convicted when the Senate did not reach the required two-thirds supermajority. (3)

Impeachment connects to revolutionary ideas and questions of checks and balances, stopping tyranny and injustice, and making sure that the power resides with the people, or in this case, the House of Representatives. While there is debate about the vague definition of the impeachable offenses, I would not amend this clause because a narrow and specific definition would be easier to avoid and would not provide for changes in laws and offenses. This vague provision leaves more room for the House and the Senate to make decisions on what is morally correct and the appropriate punishments.

  1. “ArtII.S4.4.2 Historical Background on Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/.

  2. “About Impeachment,” United States Senate, https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm.

  3.  “ArtII.S4.4.8 President Bill Clinton and Impeachable Offenses,” Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-8/ALDE_00000696/.