Impeachment History 101

The possibility of impeachment has been coming up more and more in reputable political conversations. Prominent congressman have called for it, popular TV personalities have screamed it, and the buzz in the blogosphere has been steadily growing, all calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

On that note, it’s time for some education. What exactly does the Constitution say about impeachment? Who can Congress impeach? What is the procedure for the proceedings? How has impeachment worked throughout US history?

The Constitution

The Constitution’s discussion of impeachment is brief and to the point:

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.

However, this brings up an interesting point that a lot of people miss. Any civil officer of the United States can be impeached. That means not only the President, but the Vice-President, all Cabinet members, and all other executive officers. While typically people call for an impeachment of Bush, other officers such as Dick Cheney have arguably committed more crimes than the hapless President. Therefore I would argue they are more vulnerable to an impeachment attempt and an impeachment of officials like Cheney are more likely to result in successful conviction.

Procedure

Impeachment, as a parallel to criminal justice proceedings, is really only half of the process. Impeachment is the act whereby the House of Representatives brings charges against an officer. It can be compared to indictment in the criminal justice world. The second half of the process is carried out by the Senate, which serves as both judge and jury in the classic trial process.

Impeachment can be initiated by a variety of people. Any House member may initiate proceedings, as may non-members such as special prosecutors, the President, or State juries. Impeachment may also be initiated via petition, which allows the common citizen a surprising hand in the process.

Once impeachment has been initiated it eventually finds its way to the House Committee on the Judiciary, one of the most powerful committees in Washington tasked with overseeing justice and law enforcement for the federal government. In this case the Committee acts as a sort of grand jury and by majority vote determines if grounds for impeachment exist. If they do, the specific charges against the impeached official are laid out in the Articles of Impeachment.

These Articles are then debated by the House, which can choose to pass the Articles as a whole onto the Senate or pass each Article individually. Articles must pass by a simple majority. If they pass, the official in question is in fact impeached. The House agrees on a representative (by vote, resolution, or at the discretion of the the Speaker of the House) who will try the case before the Senate.

With the Democrats holding a majority in the House by 31 seats, a well researched charge of impeachment against Bush or another official seems to have a good chance of passing through the House and forcing a trial in the Senate.

The Trial

Once the issue moves to the Senate things start to resemble a criminal trial even more. Each side (the House representative appointed to try the case and representatives from the impeached individual) has the opportunity to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and so-forth. A majority of Senators must be present at the impeachment hearings for them to be valid.

Once both sides have argued their cases deliberations proceed in private. Unlike criminal cases which require a unanimous jury to acquit or find innocent, conviction in impeachment only requires a two-thirds majority. Any less and the individual is acquitted. If convicted, the Senate can choose to only remove the convicted official from office and/or bar him or her from holding any other public office. If an executive officer is impeached, removal from office is automatic. For other offenders the Senate can choose to impose no punishment.

Either way, impeached defendants can still be held liable in criminal court. The President cannot use his pardon in the impeachment case, though he may pardon officials convicted later in criminal proceedings.

With the Democrats and Republicans both holding 49 seats in the Senate, with two Independents, it is much less likely an impeachment would result in a conviction. This is the most likely reason that no charges have been brought against the Bush administration yet. It would take some real hard evidence of impropriety to convince more than thirty Republicans to break party ranks and vote for a conviction.

Basic History

Since the Constitution was adopted 17 officials have been impeached, including two Presidents. Ten were either removed or resigned. The rest were either acquitted or the charges were dismissed. No President has ever been convicted and removed from office via impeachment, contrary to popular belief.

17 impeachments in over 200 years makes actual impeachment a rare occurrence. Calls for impeachment on the other hand are relatively common. While calls for Presidential impeachment are most common, thirteen judges have been impeached, making impeachment the most common tool used to control the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

But enough of the basics, let’s get into some specific cases and draw parallels to today’s situation.

Case I: James H. Peck

James H. Peck was a US District Court Judge in Missouri. He was appointed by James Monroe in 1822. Peck’s impeachment stemmed from a case tried before him involving Luke Lawless. Peck ruled against Lawless in a land dispute and published his ruling in a St. Louis newspaper. Lawless anonymously published a rebuttal, and when Peck found out who authored the piece he found Lawless in contempt of Court and had Lawless jailed and temporarily banned from practicing law.

Clearly, Peck was suppressing free speech and abusing his power as a judge. He was impeached for abuse of the contempt power in 1830 but acquitted by the Senate a year later.

In parallels to today, any official suppressing free speech or abusing power can be held liable for their actions. To me that would encompass President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales’ assertions that the wiretapping of American citizens without a warrant is legal. If this NSA program were in fact illegal there would be sufficient grounds to impeach Gonzales and possibly Bush on abuse of power charges.

The Peck case also points the way towards using a petition to start the impeachment proceedings, as Lawless conducted a highly visible campaign to impeach Peck, setting the precedent for people-powered impeachment.

Case II: Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson was impeached twice, but it is the second case that holds some interest for us.

In 1868 Johnson was impeached for removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Relations between Stanton (appointed by Lincoln) and Johnson were not good and it was widely known that Johnson removed Stanton for political reasons. The House impeached Johnson for violating the Tenure Of Office Act, a bill passed over Johnson’s veto (and later ruled unconstitutional) that took away the President’s power to remove and replace Cabinet members at will. Johnson was acquitted of the charges by one vote.

Looking to the present, this case shows the grounds for impeaching officials over politically motivated replacements. The current controversy over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s removal of eight US Attorneys points the way towards his impeachment on similar charges, though clearly not in violation of the same law as was used against Johnson.

Case III and IV: Walter L. Nixon and President Bill Clinton

Both Walter L. Nixon and Bill Clinton were both impeached in separate cases on charges of perjury before a grand jury. Nixon, a Supreme Court Justice, was accused of lying to the FBI about his intervention in a case involving a longtime friend. Clinton was accused of lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to a grand jury investigating a lawsuit brought by Linda Tripp. Nixon was removed from office while Clinton was acquitted.

Perjury seems to be the crime with the most potential for successful impeachment of Bush officials. The President has lied to the American people about the case for war against Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Vice-President Cheny has lied about his involvement in the outing of Valarie Plame as a CIA official, preferring to have his close associate Scooter Libby take the fall, and Alberto Gonzales has lied about his removal of the eight US Attorneys for political reasons as discussed above. And those are just three controversies that have made headlines recently.

So, Should We Impeach?

Yes. There are ample grounds, as articles later in our series on impeachment will discuss in detail.

From a historical perspective, perjury seems to be the most appealing charge that can be leveled at the current administration. They have lied, most people know it, and lying is often easy to prove. While perjury is usually a proxy trial for another crime, and while I’d love to really get them on the crimes at the heart of the matter, I suppose I’ll settle for charging them with lying under oath.

Winning a conviction is a whole different story. With a nice majority in the House, the Democrats could impeach solely along party lines. And with their ever growing sense of entitlement I believe they just might go ahead and do it. Conviction, however, would be a long shot. Without a “smoking gun” or strong evidence of some real impropriety I’d say any impeachment proceedings will end in acquittal.

That’s not to say the House shouldn’t impeach however. More impeachment trials have historically ended in acquittal rather than conviction, but that hasn’t stopped the proceedings from occurring. Even an unsuccessful impeachment hearing would go a long way towards pushing the President and his administration into lame-duck land, and that’s an outcome I think the Democratic House should work to support. There is more than ample evidence to bring charges against Bush and his cronies. It is high time Congress held them accountable.

What do you think? Any impeachment points I missed? Start the discussion below…

And before you go, click here for more of our posts about impeachment.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: