What’s an Impeachable Offense? We Don’t Know and that is the Problem

 After the 57-43 Senate acquittal of Donald Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting insurrection

against the government we are constitutionally left with a question:   What is an impeachable offense so serious that it merits the conviction and possible removal of a president from office?  As a result of this last failed impeachment this tool of controlling and disciplining abuses of presidential power is effectively dead.

US constitutional framers inherited the impeachment process from England.  In the battles for supremacy between parliament and the monarchy, the former used impeachment as a check upon the crown’s ministers, using the tool to remove those who abused their powers.    Impeachment was not a tool to be used against the monarch–the only or ultimate tool was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulting in a vastly weakened monarchy which was compelled into signing the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

The US constitutional framers too were fearful of strong executive power. US independence from England was precipitated by perceived abuses of power by King George III. The 1776 Declaration of Independence, especially the second half, is a catalog of a bill of particulars against the King.  Reaction to strong monarchical power produced America’s first constitution with no independent president.  By 1787 this was seen as a problem, and the task of the framers was to constitutionally produce a president with neither too weak or too sufficient of powers.

While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers numbers 70-74 celebrated a strong presidency, other constitutional framers such as Benjamin Franklin and James Madison worried about abuses of presidential power.  Franklin declared that because it would be difficult to get a criminal conviction let alone an indictment of a sitting president, another tool was needed to check him.  Madison and others worried that limiting checks on the president to criminal violations might miss broader abuses of power including mal-administration.  They thus settled on the British impeachment model as a tool or remedy.  They adopted the phrase “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors” as grounds for impeachment.

Originally the impeachment process called for the House to impeach and the Supreme Court to try the charges.  But later on during the constitutional convention the trial was moved to the Senate.  But at no point did the Framers clarify critical questions such as what is a high crime and misdemeanor; what standard of proof is needed to indict or convict; could one impeach or convict after a president left office; and if and when could the Senate vote to bar the president from holding future office?  Neither the text of the Constitution nor the constitutional debates clarify these questions, and English historical precedent is equally murky. Additionally, keep in mind that at the time of convention, political parties were assumed to be bad and hoped not to exist, and the Senators were appointed by state legislators and presumed to be above politics.  As a result, House indictments and Senate trials and the concepts of checks and balances and separation of powers  would place the country before the party.

Over time so much has changed.  Parties flourished and dominated American politics, especially today, in ways the Framers feared.  Senators are elected and captured by partisan politics.  These two factors alone changed the impeachment process. American history shows that.  Moreover, presidential power has vastly expanded, raising fears of what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.  once called the imperial presidency.

Five serious impeachment processes have been initiated against US presidents (Andrew Johnson 1867; Richard Nixon 1973; Bill Clinton 1998; Donald Trump 2019; Donald Trump 2021).  All five started as investigations by rival parties, although Nixon’s enjoyed bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee vote to recommend to the entire House impeachment.  Had Nixon not resigned, who knows the final result.

But in the four remaining impeachments, House indictments and Senate trial votes largely followed party lines.  The fact that Trump’s second Senate impeachment trial resulted in the most  bipartisan vote ever with seven of 50 Republicans voting to convict still is not much of a story to tell.  Moreover, there have been four trials and four acquittals.  It’s just not clear now what is a convictable offense.  

The impeachment process has been trivialized and rendered powerless.  Indictment for lying about a sexual affair (Clinton) was a mistake, bringing two impeachments against Trump when there was no chance of a guilty verdict did equally as much damage to the process.  If seeking to pressure a foreign official to investigate a US president’s political rival or inciting an attack on the US Capitol were not convictable offenses then what is?  Short term partisan politics, anger, or the false belief that a point had to be made have done longer term damage to checks on presidential power.  Talk to any smart prosecutor.  Do not bring charges against someone unless you have a reasonable belief that you are going to get a conviction.

Trump twice abused his presidential power and deserved punishment but impeachment was the wrong strategy. Trump lost the election, he faces possible post-presidency indictments, and public opinion declares what he did leading up to and including January 6, 2021 was wrong.  History would have rendered the judgement and precedent here.  This acquittal renders history less clear.  It sets the president for whether impeachment will ever be a tool to check presidents.  It leaves open the very problem Democrats wanted to address–how to check abuses of power of presidents leaving office.  This checking of presidential power was the problem US constitutional framers sought to address in 1787, and it is even less clear now what the solution is.

The Constitution and the Failures of Contemporary American Politics

Note:  This column recently appeared in Politics In Minnesota.

Is the polarization and dysfunctionalism in contemporary American politics an accident or  a product of design failure?  The more one thinks about it the conclusion may well be that the many of the problems now confronting the United States are the product of a faulty Constitution, or at least one that may perhaps have outlived its times.
    Many mythologize our Constitution and the men who wrote it. This seems especially true among the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. They see in James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers a “genius” to the American political process (as historian Daniel Boorstin described it) where the product of their efforts was creation of a representative democracy that really reflected the first three words of the Constitution–“We the people.” Yet historian Richard Hofstadter counseled against seeing the Constitutional Framers as gods, but instead as who they really were–smart politicians with their own interests, prejudices, and limitations who affected compromises to create the American political system.
    Among lost milestones in 2013 was the one hundredth anniversary of the publication of Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.  In that book Beard made a radical argument that the Framers were economic elitists who did not trust the common man, writing a Constitution to further their economic interests which they felt were threatened by America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles government according to Beard, was an economic disaster for business interests, and many of the constitutional framers were being hurt by this government.  The tipping point for them was Shay’s Rebellion, demonstrating to many of them, including Alexander Hamilton, the dangers that the people could pose to the rich.
    Beard’s book catalogues the economic background of the constitutional framers, all slaveholders or wealth businessmen except for a couple.  They wrote a document giving Congress vast powers to regulate and strengthen commerce, and it was also constitution that preserved slavery, stood silent on voting rights, and otherwise created a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and other power-dividing mechanisms that made it difficult, as James Madison said, for majority factions to take over the political process.  Political scientist Robert Dahl described the Constitution too as a mechanism to slow down political change, making it difficult to effect reform or change unless there was significant time and consensus to achieve it.
    Beard’s controversial challenge was to assert that the complex constitutional system was not meant to produce democracy, but instead shield the rich from the poor and to entrench the power of the former forever.  John Jay, one of the framers and co-author of the Federalist Papers, once exclaimed that “Those who own the country should rule it,” while James Madison famously declared in Federalist number ten that: “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”  For Beard, the real genius of American politics was how the Framers recognized the inevitability of class conflict but designed a political system than  transformed it into group competition, forever dividing the people among various interests, thereby sublimating strife between the rich and poor.  In short, as former Supreme Thurgood Marshall said, “We the people” was the reality of the Constitution, it excluded many from its promise and it took a Civil War, two civil rights movements,  and more than a score of amendments to even give faint meaning to the promise of these three words.
    Looking back over time one wonders to what extent Beard was correct in that the Constitution was designed to assure rule by a privileged elite or that, to update his thesis, that the polarization and dysfunctionalism in contemporary American politics is not just an accident but is exactly what the Framers wanted.  America is a society where economic privilege allocates political power.  Who votes, who runs for office, who gives money, and who benefits from our public policies is significantly determined by economic status.  The “winners” in the American political system look surprisingly a lot like the profile of the constitutional framers of 1787. 
    The Electoral College mechanism for electing the president along with the federalism it embodies have split America into regions since the early days of the republic.  Small states, such as in Senate, can gang up and filibuster legislation and thwart majorities even though they only constitute a small portion of the  population.  And in the House the requirement that every state receive at least one House member too gives disproportionate influence to small populations.  Couple that with gerrymandering and we have created a political system where there are increasingly fewer and fewer incentives to compromise.  This means fringe voices, especially in the political right these days, are given a virtual veto over reform.
    Certainly the American political system is not meant to be winner take all pure populism.  It is a balancing of majority rule with minority rights, but is the minority the Koch brothers and others with money, or those hostile to the rights of women, people of color, and the GLBT community?  The political process which was designed as a compromise seems increasingly unable to create the incentive to compromise, or at least it does not work because some do not want it to.  Instead of seeing our political system now as one where the slowness to change and demand to compromise  were viewed as virtues to protect liberty, it now appears to be one that is unable to act, paralyzed  by gridlock.
    If Charles Beard as updated is correct, one should not be surprised by what is happening across the United States.  The polarization and dysfunctionalism is either an intentional feature to preserve the power for a few, or as law professor Sanford Levinson contends, a sign of original design flaws in the Constitution that are now coming to haunt America more than two centuries later.  In either case, as we head into the 2014 and then 2016 political cycles, we should ask whether the Constitution we mythologize really is up to the task for the demands of the twenty-first century and if it is the cause of, or the impediment preventing the resolution of many of the pressing problems in contemporary American politics.

Tea Party Constitutionalism: What "original intent" would look like

For those interested in thoughts about the Tea Party and the Constitution, take a look at my piece in Salon (13 February, 2011) entitled What "original intent" would look like.

Here is the piece.

With reverence and awe, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party pay homage to the original Constitution and framers who drafted the document in 1787. The House of Representatives, in a nod to them, began its session this year by reading it. Bachmann even brought Antonin Scalia to a seminar on the Constitution for members of Congress, where the Supreme Court justice instructed members to read the Federalist Papers and follow the framers' original intent. Moreover, many of the Tea Party's political positions, such as opposition to President Obama's healthcare reform program, are rooted in their adherence to the original document.

But what if they actually got their way? If a Tea Party constitutional reading suddenly took sway and we returned to the original document as conceived, what would the American republic look like? Much to the surprise of Bachmann and others, there wouldn't be that much freedom and democracy.

To begin with, the original document was silent on the right to vote. Voting rights were largely a matter of state law, and in 1787 most states limited the franchise to white, male, Protestant property owners, age 21 or older. The original Constitution did not allow for direct popular voting for president or the United States Senate, and there was no clear language even allowing for voting for members of the House of Representatives. It took the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, to allow for people to vote for their senators (an amendment many Tea Party activists wish to repeal), and the Supreme Court, in two landmark cases in the 20th century, found that the right to vote for House members and in state and local elections was located in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and in the First Amendment.

Today there is still no right to vote directly for president, and it's only by the whim of state legislatures that there is a popular vote for that office. Had an original or plain reading of the Constitution been employed along the lines they advocate, many Tea Party activists would not have been able to vote last November. Finally, the original Constitution was silent on the right of women to vote, and states did deny them the franchise. It wasn't until 1920, with the adoption of the 19th Amendment, that women were given the right to vote. Without this amendment, there is no guarantee that Michele Bachmann would ever have been allowed to vote, let alone run for office.

Continue reading
The original Constitution didn't include a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers and authors of the Federalist Papers, argued against it. The Bill of Rights protects many rights the Tea Party considers hallowed, such as the freedom of speech and assembly and a right to bear arms. Lacking a Bill of Rights, these freedoms wouldn't be protected against limitation by the national government. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment, which declares that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the states," would not be the law of the land; thus, there would potentially be no limits on what the national government could do.

But even if we consider the Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791, to be part of the original Constitution, there are still many limits on its use. Most importantly, as written, the Bill of Rights limited only national power -- not state power. Notice how the First Amendment begins by declaring, "Congress shall make no law … " The most important provisions of the Bill of Rights, as Justice John Marshall stated in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, weren't meant to be a limit on state power. In that case, the Court ruled that a state could take an owner's property through eminent domain without compensating him.

Subscribe to an original intent reading of the Constitution and states are free to disregard individual rights, including free speech, property, religion and others. States did just that in the early years of the Republic and into the 20th century before the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply Bill of Rights provisions to the states. Most recently, the Supreme Court (with Scalia supporting it) used this incorporation tactic to apply the Second Amendment right to bear arms to states. A Tea Party constitutionalist could not have done this. So much for states as protectors of individual freedom.

And then there's the matter of slavery. Article I, Section 1 of the original Constitution permitted slavery and the slave trade. It referred to "free persons" and those "bound to service." For the purposes of census, apportionment and taxation, Indians and other persons would only be counted as three-fifths of whites. Slavery did not end until the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865. The original Constitution lacked an equal protection clause, which bans discrimination. It took the 14th Amendment in 1868 and a Supreme Court decision to create it. Lacking this clause, states were free to discriminate, and they regularly did via segregation laws.

Judicial review, or the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional, also wouldn't be permitted under an original intent reading. Tea Party constitutionalists now argue that the courts legislate from the bench when exercising this power, but it was the power of judicial review that made it possible just recently for two federal district court judges to declare the individual mandate in "ObamaCare" unconstitutional.

But nowhere in the original Constitution does it say that the federal courts have the power of judicial review. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers suggests that the federal court has this power, but it wasn't until 1803 that the Supreme Court actually ruled that this power existed. Hence, a contradiction: Hamilton, a constitutional framer and author of the beloved Federalist Papers, asserts that a power that is not explicitly written in the Constitution exists and a court rules in his favor -- and then, all these years later, Tea Party constitutionalists use that power to invalidate a federal healthcare law on the basis that it violates the Constitution!

Tea Party members say healthcare should be done at the state level. If so, states like Massachusetts have far more authority to mandate individual coverage than does the federal government. The main issue regarding "ObamaCare's" constitutionality is whether the Commerce Clause -- Article I, section 8, clause 3 -- gives Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase insurance. The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on this. But there is no question that states using what is called their police power authority -- the ability to legislate for the health, safety and welfare of their people -- could adopt an individual mandate.

And let's not forget Alexander Hamilton, who argued against the need for a bill of rights and in favor of judicial review. The famous "Report on Manufactures" and "Report on Public Credit" he prepared as George Washington's treasury secretary argued for an expansive federal government role in assisting the economy -- hardly something the Tea Party constitutionalist would endorse.

It should be clear that many of the liberties and rights today's Tea Partiers demand and benefit from just didn't exist in the original form of the Constitution. It took many amendments and clarification from the courts to secure them. On top of that, if the ideal the Tea Party espouses ever was realized, it would just mean the states would have more authority to suppress rights.