The FFs certainly meant for impeachment to be done only in the most serious of circumstances. Unfortunately they left the door wide open to impeachment for any reason.
I think their mistake is they assumed congresscritters would have some measure of honor. Their mistake…
I really think they may have had a blind spot here. Weird since they were not unaccustomed to vitriolic political fighting. A different age I guess.
If Bricker convinced you that impeachment is whatever the House says it is, let’s look at Gerald Ford’s speech where he actually said that. http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/speeches/700415.pdf
Look on page 6. Ford says that in contrast with judges, impeachment of a President is for crimes like bribery or treason. Keep in mind that Ford is the source of the quote that is used to justify impeachment for any reason, and within 30 seconds of saying it, he clearly states his opposition to the position that is so often mistakenly attributed to him.
To put it another way, people often use the words of Ford to argue against Ford’s own words. How in any way should that be convincing?
These were violent revolutionaries in the face of the mildest of colonial regimes. Forget about the vitriol – their political fighting included mass death.
As for what happened after the revolution, have you read much about the Washington administration? Jefferson tried to destroy it from within:
If they had wanted a government where officials played nicely with each other, they could have chosen to have a parliamentary system. Instead they chose a separation of powers system designed so branches would be in conflict with each other.
P.S. You are correct that they “assumed congresscritters would have some measure of honor.” This was to be accomplished through dueling.
Can congress legally impeach for any reason whatsoever?
Yes.
Does the sitting president have any legal recourse if he/she thinks the reasons for impeachment are insufficient?
No.
What else have you got?
EDIT to add: This is the legal system set up by the Founding Fathers. They were pretty smart guys. Either they goofed or they meant it to be this way. I opt for goofed.
Kim Jong Un can can sentence people to death without legal recourse. The fact that power is unchecked does not mean that any use of the power is justifiable.
I agree congress should only impeach in very serious circumstances.
But I have been schooled here many times that the law is not what I wish it to be. By all means I can rail against what I see as an injustice but at the end of the day the law is what it says.
So, we can (and I have) griped over Clinton’s impeachment but at the end of the day it was legal.
If we are a country of laws then we have to roll with what we have. You and I can complain and we can petition our representatives or even run for office to change things. I know of no other recourse short of rebellion.
To be clear, I bellyache about what I see as bad laws all the time (read some of my past posts…plenty there that show this). My wishful thinking and idealism does not change anything though.
The law was written by our FFs and it allows for impeachment for any reason or no reason whatsoever. You can argue whether that was an oversight or intentional but you cannot argue with the reality no matter how much it annoys you.
Misdemeanor essentially means bad behavior, so I’m not sure how that would help.
The plain text of the Constitution does not allow for impeachment for any reason or for no reason. As BG cited up thread, they specifically intended the bar to be fairly high. The fact that there is no check and balance for this power doesn’t mean that the Constitution provides for impeachment for no reason.
Then tell me what the president can do if congress impeaches and convicts him because his tie clashed with his suit?
Edit to add: If you do not like my take on it perhaps you will heed what Bricker has to say about it:
Would you consider, say, being a Jew to be a misdemeanor if Congress decided to remove a President for that reason? Knowing that the Constiution also prohibits a religious test for holding office?
According to Justice White:
“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”
And so says Justice Souter: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253. - See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html#.dpuf
Who do you agree with: Bricker or these two justices?
This example is unrealistic.
Presidents always have political opponents who consider them to be lawless. Google the word lawless, and the name of a few presidents, to confirm this. When enough members of the House agree, the President gets impeached. If they are angry enough to impeach, you can be sure they are angry enough to think the President committed misdemeanors and worse.
You or I might not think the President was lawless, but in the eyes of those who vote for impeachment, that will be their perception. That’s why, as a practical matter, the Constitutional impeachment clause doesn’t provide any limit on Congress.
Also, there probably isn’t any President who always acts consistently with all 22 million words of the US Code. There are legal reporting deadlines being missed in every administration. So, probable cause for impeachment may almost always exist.
I agree with Bricker. The case is not reviewable. The SCOTUS has little to do with it. If the House impeaches and the Senate convicts what does the SCOTUS have to do with it?
The impeachement is not reviewable. There is no higher power to appeal to. If congress collectively tells the president he is out of office then he/she is out of office. Who is there to gainsay them?
As Bricker mentioned there are practical considerations that presumably holds back congress from pure partisan sniping of this caliber but in the end they CAN do it if they wanted to with no more justification than the president jaywalked.
That IS the law as it stands.
The power of impeachment – and the separation of powers in general, with each branch having some ability to limit the power of the others – is the only regulation there is upon power. We can never have any true guarantee that power will be used appropriately.
This is especially true when there is very large-scale disagreement on what “appropriate” even means.
“Might makes right” is part of the definition of democratic government. If 2/3 of the House and Senate believe in something, it can become law. With that kind of majority, the President’s veto can be overridden. But the Supreme Court can still strike it down.
We have the comfort of knowing that “might” is divided against itself.
The impeachment and removal of the President is one of the constitutional operations that cannot be overridden by any other branch. The President (obviously!) cannot Veto his own impeachment, nor pardon himself if convicted, and the Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to override an impeachment or conviction.
(The fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial is, in a very minor way, a nod to the concept of division of powers.)
White and Souder suggested that it may be better for the courts to intervene to prevent a perversion of the Constitution, but obviously that such measures should be held back for an extreme miscarriage of justice. I’m not sure why you see that as unreasonable.
But I will tell Bricker that you think of his legal opinions more highly than of two Supreme Court justices!
At the end of the day they (SCOTUS) have no power over this. If the House impeaches and the Senate convicts tell me where the SCOTUS has a say in the outcome?
I can see it as a hypothetical possibility, but only in a really cloud-cuckoo scenario, that the SC might issue a non-binding opinion.
Say the House, high on some hallucinogen, impeaches the President for wearing white after Labor Day. The Supreme Court might issue an opinion that this is not an impeachable offense.
But…it wouldn’t have any actual constitutional standing. The Supreme Court cannot negate an impeachment vote. That vote is not subject to judicial review.
Suppose for a moment this were possible: then no impeachment bill could ever be certain. It is, after all, more likely that five Justices got high on a hallucinogen, than that 218 Representatives did. So, if impeachments were subject to review, five Justices (appointed by the President!) could simply wave them off.
And they could do so for whatever reason they wanted. There could never be any assurance that they would not act inappropriately!
White and Souder literally addressed this in their concurring opinions, which I quoted. They basically warned that the Court doesn’t have to sit on the sidelines if there’s a serious abuse of the impeachment power that precipitates a constitutional crisis.
“…the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” ~Andrew Jackson
The quote above is often misquoted as, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
My question remains, what can the Supreme Court do beyond tut-tutting if congress impeaches the president for what it deems to be less than good reasons? Besides, they didn’t do anything to save Clinton. The court has become political in its own right. Half the justices will probably side with congress and be glad to see the president go.