{"id":655,"date":"2023-06-03T19:44:06","date_gmt":"2023-06-03T19:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/ongoing-debate-with-impeachment-article-ii-section-iv-holden-macdougall\/"},"modified":"2023-06-03T19:45:06","modified_gmt":"2023-06-03T19:45:06","slug":"ongoing-debate-with-impeachment-article-ii-section-iv-holden-macdougall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/ongoing-debate-with-impeachment-article-ii-section-iv-holden-macdougall\/","title":{"rendered":"Ongoing Debate with Impeachment, Article II Section IV &#8211; Holden MacDougall"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Video<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<div class=\"entry-content-asset\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Constitution Project\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/B7nRR97HHZY?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Written Component<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Amendment II Section IV, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p> <p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">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. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">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. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">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 \u2018high crimes and misdemeanors\u2019. A narrower interpretation considers only treason, bribery, and crimes committed relating to a government official\u2019s 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\u00a0 by convicting them of vague forms of misconduct. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">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, <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Nixon v. United States (1993)<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, 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\u00a0 \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d and how much power this phrase could give to those in the Senate. Since Nixon v. United States deemed Senate impeachment trials \u2018non-justiciable\u2019, 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 \u2018high crimes and misdemeanors\u2019. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">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 \u2018high crimes and misdemeanors\u2019 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&#8217;s private life. <\/span><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">I would advocate amending the phrase \u201cother high crimes and misdemeanors\u201d. 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.<\/span><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Amendment II Section IV, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6531,"featured_media":632,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[318,39,781,783,785,787,221,223,303,786,782,780,200,784],"class_list":["post-655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-2nd-amendment","tag-article","tag-article-ii-section-iv-holden-macdougall","tag-debate","tag-holden","tag-holden-macdougall","tag-ii","tag-impeachment","tag-iv","tag-macdougall","tag-ongoing","tag-ongoing-debate-with-impeachment","tag-section","tag-with"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6531"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dalton.org\/theconstitution\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}