article

Augie Emmanuel Article 2, Section 4: Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

On July 4th, 1776, the United States of America announced to the world their independence from Britain. However, America’s path to the country it is today was not finalized right then and there. Instead, it would be another 11 years before the Constitution that is still in place now was written. When the founding fathers met in Philadelphia, 1787, to write the Constitution, they had quite a tall task set out for them. There were many uncertainties centered around the new government of the still young nation and many heated debates. However, one unanimous agreement was that the new form of government had to look much different from Britain’s. So instead of having a monarchy, America was assembled into a democratic republic. The government was divided into three branches; the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive branch was of course the president of the United States. It was extremely important that the Constitution had measures in place in order to make sure that not one person could possess too much power and become a monarchial dictator. This is why checks and balances can be seen throughout Article 2 of the Constitution, and the whole document for that matter. One of the largest and most important checks and balances was the Impeachment Clause in Article 2, Section 4. 

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution, also known as the Impeachment Clause, established the grounds by which a President, Vice President, and other civil officers could be impeached and removed from their positions. If they were to be convicted of treason, bribery, and other “high crimes and misdemeanors” they could be removed from office. However, since there is no definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution, its interpretation has been subject to debate between many historians. 

One of the early drafts of the Constitution wrote that Congress had the ability to impeach officers for “maladministration.” However, James Madison was famously opposed to this idea because he felt the term was too vague. He believed that the word maladministration would allow for impeachment without any real reason.  With this being said, one matter of debate was whether the Constitution should have had more specific wording in what could be considered as an impeachable offense. Chief Justice John Marshall famously argued that since the Constitution was written to endure for many years, its language had to be vague. The Constitution had to be ready for anything Americans threw at it. The founding fathers certainly could not predict the future — if they had been specific in their language in the Impeachment Clause, it is likely that an official today could evade punishment today due to some small technicality, or modern interpretation. 

I personally believe it is important that the Constitution remains vague. It is impossible to write a document designed to be used for centuries with extremely specific details since standards and ideals will inevitably change over time. Additionally, I do believe there are some problems with the Impeachment Clause that could be amended. While three presidents have been impeached in US history, zero have been removed from office. In many scenarios, political parties can get in the way of convicting a civil officer. A senator is often unlikely to vote in favor of impeaching another member of the same party as them. This senator may rely on the same supporters as the person they are impeaching, and voting to remove them from office could be a huge political risk. Impeachment is a powerful and important tool. It is key in maintaining democracy — this is why the Impeachment Clause should be amended slightly to account for political parties so that officers can still be removed from their position if necessary. 

 

Giselle Barker – Final Constitution Project, Article 2, Section 4

Video

Written Component

The second article in the Constitution constrains the elements of the executive branch, which is one of the three established in the Constitution. The fourth section in the article, gives power to the people by allowing impeachment to elected officials, as well as allows the other branches to check the executive system. The section states that reasons for impeachment can be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, the motivation for including this within the Constitution is to prevent any corruption from taking place in office.

This connects back to the fear that many Americans and public leaders had of undergoing the American Revolution again because of the abuse of power from King George. The common understanding of section 4 is that Congress has the power to vote on the removal of the President, Vice President, or other elected officials.

However, matters of debate on the clarity of this section of the article have been interpreted differently, the particular line “high crimes and Misdemeanors” have been regarded as not specific enough to be a claim. Since high crimes and misdemeanors could include misdemeanors as small as littering to a first-degree misdemeanor charge, many scholars debate that this statement is too vague and could mean that littering could qualify as an impeachable offense.

As an example, scholars use the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1998 when Bill Clinton was being tried under the statement of “high crimes and misdemeanors” after lying under oath about an affair. The question arose of whether or not certain crimes could be an impeachable offense, especially since the misdemeanor occurred under unofficial matters and was heavily based on how protected his private life by lying. This example shows how the statement “misdemeanors” could be confusing and not allow for a filter of what is considered impeachable or not. 

Based on both the common and divergent interpretation, I understand how the language used in the 4th section can come off as confusing and is too vague to be able to cause the impeachment of an office official. An adaptation that I believe would be beneficial would be to add the word first degree misdemeanors instead of just the word misdemeanors. This allows for confusion around the term misdemeanors to be eliminated and stops the idea that the section’s vagueness makes impeachment hard to apply. As well, this adaptation could be very helpful for possible upcoming impeachment trials and save the debate of whether the offense is considered impeachable. 

Kannon Hunter – Fifth Article

Video

Written Component

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the first governing document of the United States. The Articles had proven ineffective in providing a strong central authority and lacked provisions for amending the document. The framers recognized the need for a more flexible and adaptable system that could withstand the test of time. This led to the inclusion of Article 5 in the Constitution, which provides a formal and organized mechanism for amending the Constitution.

The historical forces giving rise to Article 5 can be attributed to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment ideas, the experiences of the American Revolution, the desire to balance federal and state powers, and the need for a flexible system of governance. These factors shaped the framers’ vision for a constitution that could be amended to meet the evolving needs of the nation while preserving its core principles.

Article 5’s primary significance lies in its provision for amending the Constitution. It allows for the adaptation of the Constitution as societal needs and conditions change over time. This ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and avoids becoming rigid or outdated. However, there are divergent interpretations of Article 5, particularly regarding the power of Congress in the amendment process. Some interpretations emphasize Congress’s sole authority to propose amendments, while others argue that a convention of states can independently propose amendments.

While there isn’t a specific Supreme Court decision addressing this debate, the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921) clarified that Congress can set deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments. While some scholars have argued that Article 5 should be changed to allow for an easier path to proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments, the debated interpretation “How We Change The Constitution (Hint: It’s not by amending it)” by David A, Strauss is particularly persuasive because it gives direct examples of how many of the rules and areas covered by the Constitution have changed over time, even though the number of constitutional amendments has been limited and the process to propose and ratify an amendment is strict.

Strauss gives compelling examples of instances where the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, even though the specific text of the document has not. For example, even though the Equal Rights Amendment was never officially ratified, women continued to gain equality through other channels, like legal battles in the courts. Regarding the suggested adaptation of the amendment process, one argument proposes changing the requirement to two-thirds and three-fourths of the popular vote instead of relying on the House of Representatives and State Legislatures. An argument can be made that allowing the people to directly vote on changing the Constitution will lead to a more efficient path to enacting amendments.

However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such a change. The general population may be easily influenced by political propaganda, and the media or may not fully understand the serious implications of more easily proposed and passed constitutional amendments. While the high thresholds for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments impose challenges that have resulted in only 27 constitutional amendments having ever been instituted, they were put in place by the Founding Fathers for good reasons. Altering the process based solely on popular vote may not necessarily represent the long-term will and best interests of the nation.  

Article IV – Guarantee Clause

Video

Written Component

The Guarantee Clause, Article IV Section IV, explains that the United States requires every state to have a republican form of government, meaning elective government and therefore majority rule. The clause also ensures each state will be federally protected against invasions and domestic unrest or violence. The Guarantee Clause was a response to the country’s recent history. Newly independent from the monarchy, the Constitution framers saw guaranteeing majority rule as crucial to protecting the country from returning to a monarchy or establishing a dictatorship or military rule. In addition, federal protection against invasions was also in mind after the American Revolution. Federal protection against domestic unrest or violence is seen as a direct response to Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787 when Massachusetts farmers led an armed uprising, and Congress was unable to deploy troops from other states to stop them. These recent events likely influenced the drafters of the Constitution to include these protections as a “guarantee.” 

Matters of debate concerning the Guarantee Clause center around the tension between a federal guarantee of majority rule and state autonomy to govern themselves. For instance, in the case, Oregon v. Mitchell in 1970, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government was limited to setting a minimum voting age for federal elections only. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment overturned this case, setting a minimum age of 18 across all elections, state and federal. Similarly, Amendments, XV, XIX, and XXIV declare that state elections may not discriminate by race or sex, or charge poll taxes, respectively. Another debate is related to the disenfranchisement of African Americans during Reconstruction. After the Civil War, African Americans were the majority in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, which did not allow them to vote. This disenfranchisement was a violation of the Guarantee Clause as majority rule was obstructed. While the Guarantee Clause obligates the federal government to step in, Congress does not have authority to police state elections. Similarly, the question of whether the Guarantee Clause should protect against voter suppression is also a matter of state versus federal authority. Voter suppression undermines the fundamental principles of representative democracy by limiting access to the ballot. It can be argued that the Guarantee Clause should include protecting citizens’ rights to vote freely and without discrimination. Dictating how polls are run in state elections, however, could be considered infringing on state autonomy.

In the debate concerning federal protection against voter suppression, I find the argument that guaranteeing a republican form of government for states means guaranteeing protection against voter suppression to be most persuasive. Federally protecting voters is difficult, however, as it can be considered encroaching on state autonomy. Federally standardizing the polling process across states would protect against voter suppression but takes away from states’ autonomy to run their own elections. Aside from this issue, having different state polling processes protects state elections from fraud or external interference as it makes elections harder to systematically hack. The debates surrounding the Guarantee Clause capture the tension in balancing federal and state power. 

 

Article II, Section 4 (Impeachment Clause)-Mira Gulati

Video

Written Component

The impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is one of the most important powers given to Congress. It embodies the key principles of separation of powers and checks and balances embedded in the document. These principles were created by Baron Montesquieu, an Enlightenment thinker, who said that separating the branches and holding each other accountable was essential to preventing abuse of power that denied people their liberty. 

The objective of the impeachment clause was to provide Congress with another safeguard for this abuse of power, stating that “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.”  An earlier draft of the impeachment clause held that officials could be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or maladministration” James Madison and the Philadelphia delegates objected to the wording and said that its obscurity would result in unreasonable impeachments. As a result, the word ‘maladministration’ was removed in favor of ‘other high crimes and Misdemeanors’ With these new revisions, congress instituted a clause that allowed the House of Representatives to bring charges against any official that has committed a crime or worked against the will of the American people. The exclusion of ‘maladministration’ makes it clear that unfitness for the post is not a valid reason for impeachment. However, the full grounds for impeachment are still not clarified with the new phrase and the meaning of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is still debated today. 

The different interpretations came into play during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1999. The impeachment arrived after it was revealed that Clinton had lied under oath about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The Senate, however, did not find him guilty of the counts of perjury and obstruction of justice Many Democrats advocated that while Clinton’s behavior was morally punishable, it did not affect the public so it did not constitute impeachment. That it was not a ‘high crime’ On the other side of the aisle, Republicans argued that his actions betrayed the trust of the nation and were therefore liable for conviction. 

The Clinton case raised a lot of questions surrounding the conduct of government officials. Many people wondered whether he set a precedent that only wrongdoing related to the President’s decisions involving the nation would constitute an impeachment. Whether only crimes prosecutable by court apply to the clause or misconduct and dishonor did too. If the original clause is to be maintained, only time and more impeachments will answer it. 

An alternate solution, however, lies in an amendment that would revise the last phrase of the Constitution so that the ‘high’ in ‘high crimes’ is removed. This would help clarify whether any crime that an official commits is applicable for impeachment. It does not make sense to have a range of crimes that an official is allowed to commit as they need to be held to the same standards as everyone else in America. The system of checks and balances that are meant to retain the citizen’s liberty holds no power if they do not.

Declare War Clause: Article 1, Section 8

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was created, Article 1, Section 8 dealt with federalism, the separation of the powers on the national level versus the state level. The common interpretation of this section has changed over time, and one can generalize them into four broad categories in chronological order. At first, this section was perceived as Enumerated Rights Federalism, which meant that the national government was characterized as a government with limited powers. The national government had power as far as the enumeration in Section 8 went, but the states had everything else that was left over. State power was not given by outlining them directly, but instead by outlining the power of the federal government.

The second category was Fundamental Rights Federalism, where after the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act, the federal government was given the power to override state legislation in order to protect the fundamental rights of American citizens. The third category was New Deal Federalism, which ended Enumerated Rights Federalism, because this gave the federal government the power to regulate the states themselves in terms of intrastate commerce.

Now, enter into the modern era, where courts are trying to find a way to draw lines in order to identify where Congress’ powers end and where states’ powers start. Such efforts include preventing Congress from interfering in noneconomic intrastate activity. This is called State Sovereignty Federalism, where courts try to carve out a zone of autonomy for the states. Federalism has been debated for a long time, whether it be the amount of rights delegated to the national government and Congress versus the states. Some are staunch supporters of giving states the vast majority of rights, pointing to how individual states can establish different legislative/economic systems as a form of experimentation to see which sort of system works best.

Some argue that the methods of the court in terms of determining federalism based on the sovereignty of the states is not a method that adequately takes into account the intricacies of the relationship between the federal and state governments. When talking specifically about the Declare War Clause in Section 8, the common interpretation of that also falls into debate. However, the two sides of the debate are a bit different from the federal vs state government debate.

The debate in this clause specifically is between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The wording of the clause states that Congress can “declare war”, make legislation about conquering on land and water, authority to permit privateers to use force upon an enemy, and authority to legalize the seizing of another foreign nation’s property as repayment for debt. Up until the modern era, it has been unclear whether the Declare War Clause permits the executive branch to respond to sudden violent attacks.

In the case of The Bey of Tripoli, when war was declared upon the United States, President Thomas Jefferson sent frigates in response. However, Congress never formally declared a state of war with the Bey of Tripoli, and ever since, it has been unclear to what extent the executive branch can respond with force to a threat without the authorization of Congress, if at all. Judicial courts have also largely left this issue alone, so the executive branch and Congress have simply needed to reach a state of compromise and agreement with each other.

Article V // Gabe Ponichter

Video

Written Component

In Article V, the Constitution’s framers gave America’s future leaders a way to make changes to the Constitution based on changing times of the future. In simpler terms, Article V of the Constitution says that If two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives agree, they can put amendments for the Constitution to vote. Another way amendments could be proposed is if 2 thirds of all the state legislatures agree to present some during a convention. To approve amendments, either ¾ of all the state legislatures must agree or ¾ of conventions convened in each state, based on Congress’ choice. There are two caveats; amendments to the Constitution could not change the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article of the Constitution until 1808. Additionally, amendments could not strip a state of its right to vote in the Senate unless that state would be partial as well. Being able to make amendments to the Constitution allowed for debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists to be settled by compromising on amendments eventually being added to the Constitution. Leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, there was one principal opinion about making amendments to the Constitution held by some Anti-Federalists. These people, looking to ensure enough power for the states and the people rather than just the central government, supported Article V because, through amendments, a Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution, guaranteeing basic protections for Americans. 

Throughout the more recent history of Article V, some controversy has arisen over whether or not states can rescind their ratifications of certain amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not expressly state that states can do this; however, in the case of amendments like the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of 1972, which was never ratified, six states still voted to rescind their ratification. In the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court decided it would be at Congress’s discretion to determine whether a state could rescind its ratification, seemingly on a case-by-case basis. In the ERA’s case, it became irrelevant that states rescinded their ratifications because the amendment was not passed before the 7-year limit agreed upon in Congress. However, through countless decisions like Kirchberg v. Feenstra (1981) or J.E.B v. Alabama (1994), the Supreme Court was able to achieve the same effect of the ERA, declaring it unconstitutional for women to be discriminated against by American laws. The ability to make amendments to the Constitution connects to the core values of the Enlightenment Period, in which modifications to the thought of the “old regimes” were necessary for the common people to gain knowledge and a voice for themselves. As such, Historians can view Article V as a reassurance that if changes need to be made to the Constitution to protect the agency of Americans, they can be made, just like the Bill of Rights first did during America’s creation.

 

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions on Women’s Rights.” In ACLU Women’s Rights Project. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/101917a-wrptimeline_0.pdf.

 

Annenberg Classroom. “The Annenberg Guide to the United States Constitution.” Annenberg Classroom. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/constitution/.

 

Rappaport, Michael B., and David A. Strauss. “Interpretation and Debate: Article V.” National Constitution Center. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-v/interpretations/277.