Are you familiar with Impeachment proceedings?

Question

FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process
Impeachment: A Look at the Process

Q. What is impeachment?
A. It is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office.

Q. Who are these officials?
A. Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "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." These "civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).

Q. What is the role of the House of Representatives in impeachment under the Constitution?

A. Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that "the House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of impeachment." This means that it has the power to bring charges against an official.
Q. What is the Senate's role under the Constitution?
A. Once impeached, high officials are tried by the Senate. Article 1, Section 3, specifies, "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 two thirds of the members present."
Q. What punishment does the Constitution prescribe if the official is convicted?

A. Article 1, Section 3, also specifies, "Judgment in cases of impeachment 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."
Q. What else does the Constitution say about impeachment?
A. Article 2, Section 2, gives the President the "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Article 3, Section 2, says, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment; shall be by jury..."
Q. How many impeachment proceedings have there been in our history? How many involved a president?

A. The serious nature of impeachment is reflected in the fact that the House of Representatives has only moved seriously to impeach 18 officials in the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified, including two presidents, one cabinet member, one senator, and 13 judges. (The trial of the senator in 1797 resulted in the judgment that a United States Senator is not subject to impeachment.) Only seven of these officers were convicted by the Senate. A president has never been removed from office through the impeachment process. Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868, was not convicted by the Senate (by a margin of one vote) and Richard Nixon resigned before the House voted on the articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee.
Q. How does the impeachment process reflect the role of checks and balances in our constitutional system?

A. In essence, impeachment reflects a check by the legislative branch on the executive and judicial branches. It provides a way for this branch to deal with serious misconduct by judges and by both elected and nonelected members of the executive branch.
Serious misconduct by Representatives and Senators are dealt with by those bodies. Both the House and the Senate have means by which they may investigate charges of misconduct against members. Among the sanctions are censure, reprimand, and even expulsion.

Q. What are the grounds for impeachment?
A. As noted above, the Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What precisely constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, however, uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses. Treason and bribery are very serious offenses against the state, and most experts agree that offenses encompassed within "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similarly serious. ("Misdemeanors" is a constitutional term that does not have the current meaning of an offense less serious than a felony.)
There is historical precedent dealing with impeachable conduct. For example, in 1974 the House Judiciary Committee rejected articles of impeachment against President Nixon for the secret bombings in Cambodia, which were viewed as being within executive prerogative as commander in chief,

, and for personal income tax irregularities, which were viewed as too personal to warrant impeachment. (The articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee related to criminal actions during the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; as noted above, Nixon resigned before the full House voted on the articles).
Also, many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct. In the words of Dean John D. Feerick of Fordham University School of Law, in an article published in 1984, "Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable. Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is generally regarded as grounds for impeachment. Since impeachment is a drastic sanction, the misconduct must be substantial and serious."

Q. What is the basic impeachment process?
A. The basic impeachment process is spelled out in the Constitution. In essence, the House of Representatives functions something like a grand jury, in that it weighs the evidence and determines whether it is sufficient to justify articles of impeachment (similar to an indictment) and a trial to determine whether the charged official is guilty or not guilty. This trial is held in the Senate, with the Senators serving as jurors. The basic process, then, is in broad outline similar to the process for bringing criminal charges against an individual through the judicial system. If impeachment proceedings are brought against the President, the Chief Justice presides, adding a "judicial" aspect.
However, principal actors in the process are not ordinary citizens acting as grand jurors and trial jurors, but rather political figures--elected officials who serve by virtue of their position,

and not because they have been selected by the courts to serve in judgment. That inevitably introduces a "political" element not directly present in judicial trials.
Q. How is impeachment different from the criminal and civil processes?
A. The criminal process involves personal misconduct and imposes penalties to vindicate the interests of society. The civil process involves personal fault and imposes liability to compensate individual victims.
The impeachment process is different from either of these. While it has elements of the criminal process, it is also a "political" process in that it is designed to deal with misconduct by high public officers. In the words of professor Jeff Atkinson of DePaul Law School, impeachment is designed "to protect our country and our Constitution from leadership that has become a danger to the country. Phrases used by the framers of the Constitution include 'corruption,' 'abuse of power,' 'subversion of the Constitution,'

and 'neglect of duty.'"
In keeping with this purpose, the process and remedy are also "political." Our elected representatives in Congress sit in judgment, and, if convicted, the offender is removed from office and not permitted to hold office again.
Q. What procedures does the House of Representatives follow in the impeachment process?
A. While the Constitution outlines the basic process for impeachment, the specific procedures are determined by the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate. To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House.

. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial.
The framers did not intend impeachment to be merely a way for one party (what the authors of The Federalist Papers termed a "faction" to cast an official from another party out of office. Rather, they saw it as a solemn, somber process, a serious activity with serious consequences. In any impeachment, there are many factors to weigh and much evidence to consider. Moreover, the process contemplates that due process is afforded to the officer who is subject to impeachment. Charges must be considered and made, a trial must be conducted, and appropriate proof of sufficient misconduct shown.
Q. Once an official is impeached by the House of Representatives, what procedures does the Senate follow in the impeachment trial?

LET ME REPEAT THAT:
'subversion of the Constitution,'

The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the Executive Order issued on May 9, 2007 unquestionably "subvert the Constitution."

It is undeniably grounds for impeachment.

Let's see how many people are able to look the founding fathers in the eye...and then SPIT ON THEM.

That would be "libs" not "lib's" Mr. Einstein.

And I highly doubt you can read at all.

*******************
TO MADPOL: Sorry about that, but I do so love to put it all out there. My intention was to place it in public forum, in all its glory, for all to see just how simple the case for impeachment actually is.

bush meets the criteria.
He and cheney WILL be impeached.

***********************
TO FUNNY GIRL: Exactly. I'd have to say the average American is not familiar with impeachment proceedings. Here it is, in plain black and white, and bush most certainly is impeachable.

Why have impeachment proceedings not begun? Gee, it's hard to swim when both hands are tied behind your back.

bush and cheney have been enormously successful in classifying every document, email, post-it note in the White House for the past seven years as "classified/national security" which is, of course, Grade A Baloney.

**********************
TO BRUCE: Always a pleasure to see you. Yes, cheney's deceit and culpability is easy to see. As is bush's - the Constitutional shredding evident in the Patriot Act is unavoidable.

********************
To Alias Smith & Jones: Wow. Your post is positively SUBLIME. Who knew you were so articulate? Are you a lawyer?

Answer 1

The case is open and shut. How anyone who is a self-described conservative can elocute *against* impeachment is beyond me. Fealty to the President over the Constitution is itself an anti-Americanism.

Key points in your research:

* Feerick's noting the wide consensus that impeachment is not limited solely to that which is indictable. I've seen all too many people here claim that "no law was broken" by Bush (itself a specious contention), and that therefore no impeachment is called for. Leading to the second key point...

* Atkinson's noting that the Framers specified "abuse of power" and "subversion of the constitution" as grounds sufficient for impeachment. The unauthorized, FISA-noncompliant wiretaps and the firing of the 8 US attorneys are both self-evident instances of abuse and subversion.

* The Framers' dismissal of the use of impeachment for "faction" satisfaction. Clinton's impeachment arose from just such factionalism; while he lied to a court concerning a personal indiscretion, his was neither criminal nor financial in nature, and therefore never existed at the level of severity or threat that is entailed in the constitutional term "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It's remarkable how few of your responders appear to have read the information to which they are responding. [EDIT] Well, actually it's just two or three responders I'm worried about - but look at PJLisa go!

Thank you, BLR. [EDIT] No, no lawyer.

Answer 2

The House of the Representatives has the initiative in this kind of procedures. If one of the members presents a proposition for impeachment the House sends it to the Juridical Commission for a proper verification. If the Commission gives green light, the House decides by simple majority if the accusations stand or not. If the vote is positive the House appoints a few members, called "managers" to take the problem to the Senators. The Senate becomes then a High Court, that will judge the case.

From 1789 until 1989 the House received approx.50 impeachment proposals, but only 12 where sent to the Senate. There where only 4 cases in witch the accused civil officers (federal judges) where found guilty. Two presidents where close to be impeached Andrew Johnson (in 1868) and Richard M. Nixon (in 1974).

Answer 3

You know, this really isn't a question about the validity of the arguments or the accuracy of the accusations. You're asking if there is any return on the investment for the ridiculous costs of investigations and proceedings related to impeachments. So I ask you: 1) What would be gained, and 2) Isn't there a better use for the money? Politicans of all stripes are typically in bed (sometimes literally) with all manner of criminal elements. It's just not news. An impeachment is only an accusation, rather like a grand jury indictment, it only serves to say there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity to proceed with prosecution where still more time and money will be expended. I would submit that although there are and have been heads of state worthy of censure and removal, that their tenure is brief enough (especially in the case of the incumbent) that the evils would still have been perpetrated and money that would be spent exposing their crimes would be put to better use ensuring...say...health coverage for the working poor, improved care at VA facilities, or improved prescription coverage for Medicare recipients. Let some industrious investigative reporters spend private funds digging through the dirt and publishing a best-seller--to condemn them in literature for all eternity.

Answer 4

Absolutely amazing question, well not really a question because you have given all the answers but it is so totally amazing for me, as a Canadian to finally be given an understanding for impeachment.
That said, the world does not understand why Cheney who has displayed "misconduct must be substantial and serious" by lying to the American public and profitted from it. Bush?... the only charge could be he is a simple nice guy who was duped into running and being coached by representatives of the former Nixon crowd...Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft
Why will it never happen?...Because his peers who are equally guilty of profiting from office and lie to Americans daily...the lobbyist corruption is rampant throughout both congress and the senate and most who are employed at the top of the system...
And, should Americans be lucky enough to see the impeachment of any top figure they would be subject to: "However, principal actors in the process are not ordinary citizens acting as grand jurors and trial jurors, but rather political figures--elected officials who serve by virtue of their position,"...obviously the same individuals who have no problem with lying and the profit from corruption.
It appears that either the forefathers were so honest they felt the system would work or they too were corrupt and did not want a system built into the constitution that would force politicians to be honest with the peoples they represent.
Maybe it is time for a constitutional amendment that allows the impeachment proceedings to be started by the people, and tried by a group of citizens just as any accused criminal is treated...public office should be just that and the public who have the hiring power should also have the firing power and the right to lay charges.
Cheney has committed more than enough as has Rodriguez and Rumsfeld but until one of them gets the dreaded BJ, it will not escalate to even the level of being tried.
The present system will never work because there is never a significant variation of power in the congress and senate to gain the votes necessary..and the power would never be tilted enough because of the division of red and blue so ingrained into the American culture.
Anyway, the Canuck has prattled enough so I will leave this question to Americans on this final note....why are so many displaying such ignorance answering this question?...certainly Americans are more educated and literate than what I see on Answers when a really good question is put before them.
I will file this question so I can always have it to refer to.

Answer 5

Bush certainly qualifies! But virtue? Republicans? Oxymoron!
What amazes me also is that the Republican Congress and Senate, have been in control for the last 8 years, and 'they have created most of the 'messes' we face today! And now that the Democrats are finally in MAJORITY, there are just enough Republicans around to keep them from doing anything worth while ,and they still have more power than the majority of Democrats, the perfect example of that 'old boys network'!So how does that one work I'd really like an answer to that one!
So why haven't they begun an impeachment process? They are having trouble getting Gonzales to tell the truth, and demanding that the White House 'give up' papers and files that 'they' ( the W.H) deem covered by executive privilege!So here we sit! We have a president who is the worst in history,and one who has committed far more crimes than any other, and he is still in office! Makes you wonder how the Republicans can accomplish these things and still say that they 'love 'this country!
I think it is high time that the House of Representatives got to work and did their job!

Answer 6

Thank you for typing this out for those of us who are too lazy to look it up. I don't know why it hasn't been done either, enough people have been screaming for it, and if they can impeach someone for getting a bj, they can do it for this guy too, who committed much more serious offenses.

Your writing is very clear and to the point. I wish I knew what else I could do. My representative is a nutjob who supports Bush. I don't know if we are all too lazy or apathetic to muster up enough energy to call for impeachment, but someone needs to do something. "He'll be out in 18 months" isn't good enough--he should pay some consequences.

Answer 7

Well, I do have a passing familiarity with Impeachment procedings from watching the last two Presidential Impeachment circuses on TV. Thanx for the update. I'm still puzzled about the one against Clinton, though. It's always been my understanding that for there to be an Obstruction of Justice, there has to be Justice to Obstruct.

But not enough, or too much info tends to preclude good answers, because it makes it harder to understand what the real question is.

So let me ask you one. Is there something you want to know? Or are you just dropping a hint here, Girl?

Answer 8

I believe that we should all email our representatives and ask them to co-sponsor HR333 Articles of Impeachment of Richard Cheney which was introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of OH. I am happy that my Representative was among the first to Co-Sponsor. Lacy Clay, Missouri 1st District.

~

Answer 9

Alas, the rules have been made to lay bare. Tis unfortunate for us that justice is blind, for should she see they would be gone.

Our represntatives are suppose to represent us - their lack of courage to fulfill their oath of office should be an awakening to the general pulic that rules were made to be broken and our government doesnt care about the populist.

We the people, need to stand up and allow them to take notice of us. Until we do they will continue to rip us asunder.

Answer 10

Blue, you have enlightened me, as to the process of impeachment. I don't understand why these proceedings have not been brought forward against the President. There certainly are grounds for them. Or have they been and if so, what's the hold up?