section-iv

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/.

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.