president

Peytin Metz – The Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

The United States Constitution was highly informed by the experiences they had under British rule, both negative and positive. The Framers of the Constitution drew inspiration from the British Impeachment tradition, which was a system put in place in order to hold high-ranking officials accountable for any serious offenses that had been committed. They wanted to ensure that the U.S. President would not be able to abuse their power, as they observed in the British monarchy. To prevent an unbalanced concentration of power in the Executive branch, they created an intricate system of checks and balances, including the impeachment process. Historically, there have been three Presidential impeachments. Andrew Johnson in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald J. Trump in 2019 and 2021. The process of Impeachment begins with an impeachment inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives. It is then put to trial in the Senate, where a vote is conducted to determine if the individual is to be convicted or acquitted.

The Impeachment Clause is located in Article II of the Constitution, which lists the enumerated powers of the Executive branch. This clause states, that in a trial of impeachment, the President may risk being removed from office if convicted of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This clause served as another check against the President, giving Congress and the House of Representatives the power to remove the President and Vice President from office if necessary. The interpretation of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is widely debated, because it only appears in the context of the Impeachment Clause. It means that the President or Vice President can only be impeached on the basis of violating the rules of public office, and impeachment cannot be inflicted as a punishment for basic incompetency. This makes the distinction between lack of ability and impeachment-worthy actions challenging to find. 

Legal scholars often debate the vagueness of this phrase, wanting it to either be read more narrowly or broadly. Scholars argue that if impeachable offenses were more narrowly read, it would leave the government unprepared for any unanticipated misdemeanors. If the offenses were read too broadly, the clause would risk forming legislative partisanship that would obstruct the independence of other government officials. Many people refer to the words of Chief Justice John Marshall to defend the ambiguity of the Impeachment clause. He stated that the “constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” He believed that the Constitution cannot and should not be expected to explicitly list the proper grounds for impeachment. It should be malleable and open to interpretation, to ensure that an unfit member of the Executive Branch can be punished accordingly. Many fear that narrowly defining the grounds of impeachment would allow the person who risks such punishment to avoid it on a specific technicality of the phrase.

Teddy – The Impeachment Clause

Video

Written Component

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution is commonly known as the Impeachment Clause. This section states that certain people in the United States government (“the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers”) can be removed from office if they are found guilty of certain types of misconduct (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”).

The idea of impeachment came from the English system where as a way to check the King’s power, Parliament could impeach ministers and those favored by the King. Contrary to the English practice at the time where any private or public person except for members of the royal family could be impeached, the Framers of the Constitution sought to limit who could be impeached and the offenses eligible for impeachment.

Per Article I, Section 1, only Congress has impeachment powers. The House of Representatives first must vote to impeach, or formally charge, the individual and then must write the articles which detail the charges before submitting them to the Senate. After convening a trial, the Senate votes on whether to convict and remove the official from office. Influenced by Enlightenment philosophes like Montesquieu, the Framers included the Impeachment Clause to allow Congress to check the Executive and Judicial branches as part of the system of checks and balances they created among the three branches of government. In order to discourage Congress from abusing its power, however, the impeachment process requires bipartisan cooperation to achieve the two-thirds vote required for conviction and removal. As a result, Congress has exercised its impeachment power infrequently, reserving it for cases where an individual’s misconduct is considered too dangerous to remain unchecked.

While judicial precedent is often used to interpret Constitutional provisions, the Judicial Branch has no authority over or involvement in the impeachment process; instead, Congress looks to historical precedent as a guide. As “civil Officers” is not defined in the Constitution, there was once a question as to whether or not members of Congress were included and subject to impeachment, but the common interpretation is that they are not Officers of the United States because Officers are appointed by the President. Instead, other provisions in the Constitution provide ways to remove members of Congress from office.

While Treason and Bribery are well defined concepts, there has been much debate around what constitutes a high Crime or Misdemeanor. In an early draft of the clause, “maladministration” was an impeachable offense, but out of concern that Congress would impeach on any grounds, the Framers replaced the term with “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As with other provisions of the Constitution, the Framers were purposely ambiguous in their wording in order to create a lasting system of government that is flexible enough to address unexpected circumstances and allow the removal of an official whose behavior is harmful to the public. It is commonly understood that this clause exists to allow a process for removing government officials not for incompetence, but for abuses of 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.

The Declare War Clause

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was originally written in 1787, the Antifederalists became fearful that the new Constitution would give too much power purely to the President, so the new government would resemble a monarchy more than the democratic system promised. The Antifederalists opposed the US Constitution because they believed that it did not balance powers. The Declare War Clause addressed the power the President had when addressing declarations of war against other nations.

The Declare War Clause was initially written with the purpose of limiting the President’s use of the USA’s military forces without Congress’s clear approval. The clause was a preventative clause to insure the President couldn’t abuse their powers. The approval of Congress was thought necessary for both formal declarations of war and for smaller uses of force in 1787. Modern Presidents have used military forces without formal consent from Congress. In 1950, President Truman ordered for US forces to enter Korea without approval from Congress. Constitutional scholars argued that, regardless of the original intention of the clause, there is now a modernized practice that allows the President considerable power to use military forces. Some constitutional scholars believe that Presidents have full authority when responding to an attack on the USA, while others think that the President controls offensive and defensive attacks. 

Generally, a majority agree that presidential actions pursuant to Congressional authorizations are constitutional, although there is debate regarding how broadly any particular authorization goes. Presidents have claimed authorization from informal congressional actions such as Congress’s failure to object to ongoing hostilities. This has caused controversy surrounding the clause and how effective or respected it is.

Some Presidents have decided independently on approving military action, while others stayed true to the Declare War Clause. Many scholars believe that no matter what the original purpose of this clause was, it has transformed into a more modern understanding that allows the President more independent power. Scholars believe that Presidents are allowed to initiate the use of military force without formally declaring war, but that Congress’s exclusive power is issuing the proclamation of war. In the 1863 “Prize Cases”, the Supreme Court stated that as a defensive measure, President Lincoln’s blockade following an attack was ambiguous regarding whether the authority for said blockade came from specific statutes of Congress. Court noted that the President couldn’t begin hostilities without Congress’s approval. Now courts avoid deciding cases based on limits on what types of disputes courts can resolve, including political questions. As a result, the precise implications of the Declare War Clause remain unanswered. Leaving room for debates and disputes. The “Prize Cases” show that the basics of this clause remained upheld because it was decided that the President couldn’t begin a war or use military sources without Congress’s approval.

In history, we have learned about the causes of revolutions in France and America, and the main cause for both revolutions was fear of a monarchy and the concentrated power that comes with a monarchy. The Declare War Clause guards a piece of power against being a single man’s decision and therefore aids in protecting the USA against a monarchy.