If this belongs in GQ, please move it - I hope for a short thread with a quick factual answer but I don’t know whether such an answer exists.
Can a US president be impeached for overusing his power to pardon? Let’s say for the sake of discussion that he suddenly granted pardons to a thousand people guilty of heinous crimes.
Congress determines what the president can be impeached for. They can impeach him because they don’t like his face.
I’m guessing that the corollary to this is that the congress is equally free to ignore whatever they feel like ignoring. If that’s the case, then I guess my question is completely answered.
They are only constrained by their concern about their own political careers. If they don’t care about their political careers, they can do anything. If they do, then they need to proceed with caution.
In other words, no law, just cronyism. Interesting.
For that reason, it will be interesting to see what Trump does on his last day in office. If they’re voting on impeachment and he’s signing pardons all the way out the door, it will be quite a clusterfuck.
It’s not cronyism, it’s the Constitution. :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, did you have some reason for thinking it was different?
I would add that in addition to political survival, some Congresscritters do have a sense of personal integrity. And one would hope that when it goes to the Senate for trial, you’d see even more of that trait exhibited.
But if you’re just talking about the pardon, yes, there is no law that says it has to be used in a certain way. As for personal integrity of the president, that’s probably why many (most?) pardons are issued in the last few days of a president’s term.
Congress can impeach, and remove from office, for virtually anything. The only question is whether they want to or can pull off the 2/3 necessary.
I asked because I didn’t know anything about it.
The Constitution does require that there be a charge of “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” So, no, Congress can’t impeach a President because they don’t like his face. They have to drum up some kind of law that’s been broken. Even if it’s just a speeding ticket.
As a political reality, that’s true. As a matter of law, since the decision of Congress is unreviewable, they could, in fact, pass a resolution that said:
*Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by the fact that his face exhibits certain signs of dishonesty, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.*
Politically unfeasible, but perfectly legal.
Here is the US Supreme Court saying that the remedy to excessive use of the pardon power is impeachment:
Does a resolution like that create a crime that can be committed? If Congress decided to go after Trump, it would make more sense to do something like enact a law saying the President can’t play golf or use Twitter and count on him breaking the law.
Impeachment is a political process, not criminal. It can be undertaken for any reason or no reason. If Congress has the votes, it’s a done deal and the action isn’t able to be appealed. Any connection to a “high crime” is window dressing to the ultimate legality. Basically, no one can stop them, so they can do whatever they want.
The president eats steaks well done? Impeach him. Uses ketchup on same? Impeach him. If it gets the votes, nothing else matters. Literally nothing else.
Well, at some point you have to allow the president and congress to act according to their own discretion. If every possible situation was regulated by law, you wouldn’t need elected officials at all - you may as well let civil servants do the job.
Others have said it on this thread and I’ve said it before on others: impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. Congress can interpret ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors’ rather loosely.
Excessive use of presidential pardon is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, but if a congress were so inclined they could interpret this use of pardoning as another form of obstruction, which is a felony in pretty much all jurisdictions in the US. They could interpret it that way and they could decide to advance an impeachment case on those grounds, but this congress won’t. It’s up to voters to take some responsibility for this predicament. But I’m kinda doubtful that voters will connect those dots. It took a nation of idiots to vote Trump into power in the first place. We haven’t gotten smarter.
I have a personal preference for a narrow and strained construction of the general powers of (any) president, but that old quotation is a pretty clear indication of what someone’s intention was. Thank you for finding that.
Which, in practice, are defined by Congress. Yes, they can impeach for any reason they like. Andrew Johnson was impeached for making speeches denouncing Congress, for example.
Who’s going to stop them, other than the voters?
As far as I know, the very first impeachment and removal of a federal official (a judge) did not involve any accusations that the official had committed a crime. The accusation was that the judge was a drunk and his rulings sucked. The impeachment was successful and he was removed. There was one other judge impeached for drunkenness, but he resigned before the trial.
Excessive drunkenness in office isn’t a crime, but I think it would fall within the broader definitions of “misdemeanors.”