What Were the Founders Intentions Regarding Impeachment?

Part 1:

Role Play Narrator:

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a great deal of debate surrounded the establishment of the presidency. The Constitution’s Framers intended to provide for a structure that would encourage the election of only the best leaders, such as George Washington described in a 1797 letter to John Luzac:

George Washington:

“the man who acts from principle, who pursues the paths of truth, moderation, and justice.”

Narrator:

But they knew there might be times when a president stepped outside the bounds of law and wisdom, and they needed to devise a system in addition to elections to hold him or her accountable. The Framers also considered several questions in outlining the procedures for impeachment. Should impeachment be considered as a method of removal from office for a president who has proven to be incompetent but not necessarily guilty of criminal behavior? Should it be used as a mode of removing a president as a result of partisan differences when the president is of a different party than the majority of Congressional leaders and has become an obstruction to legislation? Or is it strictly a punishment for criminal activity? What should the Congress do if the president is guilty of crimes but appears to have the confidence of the majority of the people who believe he can serve the country well in spite of his personal flaws?

Narrator: The Constitutional Convention, July 20, 1787:

Although both the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan included an impeachment process, Alexander Hamilton introduced a proposal following the pattern of the British system: accusation by the lower house of the legislature and trial in the upper house. Some members of the convention argued that an impeachment process carried out by the legislature would result in presidents being too dependent on the legislature, violating the principle of separation of powers.

George Mason:

“No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?. . . Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

Benjamin Franklin:

“What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Recourse was had to assassination in which he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. [Therefore the Constitution should provide] for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.”

James Madison:

“The Impeachment Clause is indispensable. . . for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy [deliberate violation of trust] of the president.”

Elbridge Gerry:

“A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them. . . The Executive will have great opportunity of abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force and in some respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections.”

Narrator:

The Framers had agreed at the beginning of the convention that any topic could be brought up at any time for reconsideration and edits. The conversation returned to impeachment on September 8. It was uncontroversial that a president should be impeached for accepting bribes or committing treason. The specific wording of the other infractions for which a president could be impeached was a matter of some discussion as they considered the following phrases:

• “malpractice or neglect of duty”
• “incapacity, negligence or perfidy” (deliberate violation of trust)
• “scheme of peculation” (misuse of public funds) or oppression”
• “abusing his power”

George Mason:

“Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offenses…Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined…it is necessary to extend the power of impeachments. We should add the term ‘maladministration.’”

James Madison:

“So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.”

Narrator:

Mason withdrew “maladministration” and substituted the familiar wording traditionally used in the British system: “high crimes or misdemeanors.” The English jurist Sir William Blackstone’s explanation of “high misdemeanors” punishable by parliamentary impeachment referred to offenses against the king and the government, the first of which was “maladministration of such high officers, as are in public trust and employment.” In Federalist Paper No. 65, March 7, 1788, Hamilton made a strong case for including the Impeachment Clause in the Constitution, and for trying such cases in the Senate. He explained:

Alexander Hamilton:

“The proper subject of impeachment was those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust…They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused, [but the Senate will have the wisdom and courage to judge fairly and impartially, as any jury should. Further, the Senate will command enough respect that its judgment will quiet public passions regarding] offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men.”

Part 2:

The Constitutional Provisions on Impeachment The Constitution, Article II, Section 4

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.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of the two thirds of the Members present.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

The President. . . shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Questions for Discussion:

Use the excerpts of debates at the Constitutional Convention and the specific wording of constitutional provisions related to impeachment to infer the Framers’ answers to these questions:

1. Should impeachment be considered as a method of removal from office for a president who has proven to be incompetent, but not necessarily guilty of criminal behavior?