On Impeachment

In the wake of the second impeachment of Donald Trump I wanted to do some basic research into this process. It also allows me to express my thoughts around this specific instance. 

In Article II, Section 4 it says that an official of either the judicial or executive branch may be removed from office for misconduct. John Jay (in Federalist #64) said that this mean he is unable to perform his duties with honor and has betrayed the interests of the country. Others have said it is a way to punish those who have abused their power and once again lacking in honor, integrity and character to such an extent that they can no longer perform the duties of their office. However, at the end of the day the House and Senate determine what is impeachable. 

One concern is that many worried this would be a politicized tool for one party to get rid of a political opponent or block their agenda. Alexander Hamilton discussed this in Federalist #65. He wanted to make sure impeachment was only used in extreme situations and in the interests of the nation. The President is meant to be independent of the Legislative branch and not dependent on the whims of a political Congress. It is not meant to be a way to get revenge or punish those who are disliked. As a way to ensure this the Constitution requires a majority of the House to impeach and a supermajority of Senators to convict. This conviction has never been accomplished against a president. 

Historically, Andrew Johnson was almost convicted (missing it by one vote) for firing his Secretary of War without Congress’ permission. Bill Clinton was not convicted along party lines for his personal misconduct and obstruction of justice. Now Trump has also missed conviction once and most likely will a second time (although that will be seen). George W Bush almost had impeachment proceedings brought by Democrats who wanted to remove him in 2008. Nixon would have had impeachment proceedings brought forward if he had not resigned. 

An interesting point is that the Chief Justice is supposed to preside when a President is tried. That is not happening with Donald Trump because he is now a private citizen. But this begs the question of whether or not he is even eligible for impeachment. The punishment is fixed as removal from office and disqualification from future offices. Thus the idea behind this trial is to keep Trump from running again.

It seems that impeachment is not super effective and a popular president will never be convicted. With that said it also seems to be a waste of time at this point to impeach Donald Trump a second time because it comes off as political from Democrats and other “never Trumpers” as a way to punish a man they hated from day one. It will also inspire other presidents to behave however they want knowing how hard it is to convict by the Senate. At the same time this is a good thing that an out-of-control, overly political Congress (now or in the future) cannot easily get rid of someone from the opposite party. 

    As long as elections are fair and allow the people to decide a bad president can be removed every four years if needed. I really do not see Congress as being allowed to impeach former elected officials (and believe this opens up a lot of significant issues if it becomes a trend). I am also grateful that we have a written Constitution that allows for various procedures to do its best to check tyranny in its various forms.