Impeachment

12 Key excerpts on "Impeachment"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Politics of Presidential Impeachment

  • Daniel P. Franklin, Stanley M. Caress, Robert M. Sanders, Cole D. Taratoot(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • SUNY Press

    (Publisher)

  Thus, Impeachment, to a considerable extent, can be considered a political process. There are limits beyond which the House cannot go in initiating an Impeachment if there is any hope for a conviction. After all, to convict in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote and that won’t happen unless a considerable number of senators from the president’s party are convinced to go along. Of course, as we shall see in the case of the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, removal from office never seemed to be the intent of the congressional opposition at all. Rather Impeachment, in this case, was applied, or more accurately misapplied, as a political tool. 11 American Impeachment’s English Roots Impeachment is not a uniquely American constitutional artifact as Impeachment had been a British governmental practice since the fourteenth century. 12 Impeachment was often deployed by the Parliament for partisan reasons and was seen as a practical instrument to be deployed in struggles for power. The British monarch could not be impeached, but Impeachment was often used by Parliament at the behest of the king to remove and even punish political enemies. The king could order the House of Commons to initiate Impeachments against anyone inside or outside the government, and then order the House of Lords to convict and punish the accused individual. The charges varied but often resembled the familiar American variant of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Gradually, Impeachment became a more formal power exercised independently by the British Parliament, with the House of Commons using the process to bring charges against a wide assortment of public and private citizens, often with little hard evidence. At times this was done to punish political enemies or in the battle between political parties. Indictments from the House of Commons were sent to the House of Lords, which had a higher standard for evidence and usually would only proceed if the case had a possibility of conviction

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Impeachment in the Nigerian Presidential System

  Challenges, Successes and the Way Forward

  • Omololu Fagbadebo(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  1). He identifies three reasons that make it a special political rather than strictly legal instrument. First, Impeachment proceedings would be insulated from the traditional courts of law but reside within the legislative institution, as the custodian of the collective will of the people. Secondly, the grounds of Impeachment are usually ambiguous, without necessarily defined within the statutory rules of law but in broad terms to incorporate diverse interpretations of acts that amount to violation of the constitution. The third reason, according to Hilbay (2012), is that government officials occupies important position with adequate protection by their electoral term of office while Impeachment remains the only mechanism for their removal. Implicitly, Impeachment is a constitutional measure to get rid of an unaccountable leader with a view to ensuring transparency and accountability. In other words, a leader whose conduct infringes upon, or hampers the welfare and well-being of the people is liable for removal. Mosler (2017, p. 111) has noted argued that Impeachment is an instrument that “guarantees and enforces core principles of democratic quality, such as the rule of law (constitutionality), inter-branch accountability (separation of powers), and responsiveness (popular sovereignty) in a time of crisis.” Accordingly, Impeachment is defensive measure “against an incumbent’s malpractice actions that violate the constitution or other laws or betray the trust of the people” (Mosler 2017, p. 112). Thus, it serves as an effective oversight instrument aimed at protecting democratic values and promoting democratic consolidation on the platform of accountability. This means that the essence of Impeachment in the constitution is to serve as warning signal to leaders of the consequences of their actions while in office. Like the application of a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, Impeachment is an accountability mechanism

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Impeachment in a Global Context

  Law, Politics, and Comparative Practice

  • Chris Monaghan, Matthew Flinders, Aziz Z. Huq(Authors)
  • 2024(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The prospect of then-President Donald J. Trump being impeached accompanied the publication of Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz’s provocative and authoritative To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment (Basic Books 2018), Daniel P. Franklin and others, The Politics of Presidential Impeachment (SUNY Press 2020) and Frank O. Bowman III’s extensive and authoritative, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump (2nd edn, CUP 2023). In contrast, Impeachment is regarded as something of a relic in its country of origin, the United Kingdom. For the most part, Impeachment is explored by historians focused on particular periods of history or on the Impeachment of specific individuals. There is a regular (but far from anything like the US) flow of academic articles on Impeachment covering the Long Parliament, the Impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, and the trial of Viscount Melville. A lone recent example of a book on Impeachment is Rachel Carnell’s Backlash: Libel, Impeachment, and Populism in the Reign of Queen Anne. 5 Brian Cowan and Scott Sowerby’s The State Trials and the Politics of Justice in Later Stuart England is another noteworthy example. 6 Then, there is the question of how Impeachment fits within the contemporary United Kingdom, a country that has witnessed a decade of constitutional strife and uncertainty, capped off with the rise and fall of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. These issues are addressed in Chris Monaghan’s Accountability, Impeachment and the Constitution: The Case For a Modernised Process in the United Kingdom. 7 This book makes the case that Impeachment, if modernised and reinvented for the 21st century, could be used to support existing accountability mechanisms and thus empower the House of Commons to hold the executive to account. This view is somewhat of an outlier

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Defending the American Presidency

  Clinton and the Lewinsky Scandal

  • R. Busby(Author)
  • 2001(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  It is also problematic as a consequence of the ambiguous language employed in the Constitution. While this indeed has enhanced the flexibility of that document, it has ensured that to simply define a high crime and misdemeanor has become a task in itself. This is testament to the desire of the Founding Fathers to ensure that Impeachment was only to be wielded when matters were incontrovertible, gained broad bipartisan support, and evoked a widespread consensus about the severity of wrongdoing. Impeachment is a multi-step process. 2 The term itself is slightly mis- leading, referring to only half the process of removing a President from office. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach the President. This means that in effect it brings charges of wrongdoing against the President, these being contained in articles of Impeachment detailing the nature of the perceived transgressions. Thereafter, if the charges are agreed to by a straight majority in the House of Impeachment and Trial 139 Representatives, the Senate is involved in a trial phase. It examines the charges brought by the House and finds whether these are in keeping with an understanding of the nature of Impeachment as outlined in the Constitution. 3 The case against the President is conducted and pre- sented by House Managers who instruct the Senate on the views of the House. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial in the Senate. This implies that the process is judicial in nature, but it is of note that the Framers of the Constitution located the Impeachment process in the political, as opposed to legal, realm and while the trial in the Senate takes on some trappings of a legal process it retains, at its heart, a political element. 4 The Senate votes on the charges brought to it by the House. It must approve charges by a two-thirds majority if the President is to be removed from office, and it must vote on each article of Impeachment separately.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Perspective

  • Charles Rembar(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Open Road Media

    (Publisher)

  This is error. Impeachment is no closer to a criminal trial than it is to an election. It is not an election, of course, despite the fact that Vice-President Ford, when he was a Congressman (either cynically, he being a proponent of Impeachment at the time, or, more likely, thoughtlessly) declared that an impeachable offence is whatever Congress says it is. The definition of impeachable transgressions is not the subject of this piece, which deals, rather, with the standards according to which Congress should arrive at its decision on whether such transgressions have occurred. But procedure here, as nearly everywhere, is hardly less significant than substance.

  Impeachment is a unique political mechanism created by our Constitution, a proceeding sui generis. It therefore ought to have its own procedural standards, appropriate to its constitutional purpose. Models and forms taken from other parts of our governmental system have a limited utility. It is a mistake to import wholesale into the Constitution’s provisions for expulsion from federal office—provisions that vest responsibility for the matter in the legislative branch—concepts peculiar to the functioning of the judiciary.

  The confusion is natural. There are several reasons for it, all related. One is that Impeachment of a President is virtually unprecedented. The House has voted Articles of Impeachment only twelve times in our history, and only four times has Impeachment resulted in removal. Only once has a President been involved, and, though the Senate vote was notoriously close, the charges against Andrew Johnson were ludicrous. He was accused of two “high crimes and misdemeanors.” One was making speeches disrespectful of the Congress. The other was firing his Secretary of War, in violation of a statute designed by Congress to provoke a confrontation, a statute obviously unconstitutional.

  The charges against President Nixon provide a shocking contrast. Whether or not they are true, and whether or not they will lead to an Impeachment, we have been forced to think about the gravest accusations, short of treason, that can be lodged against a Chief Executive: obstruction of justice, bribery, deliberate failure to check excesses of his principal subordinates, violation of his Constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” secret abuse of Executive power—in short, subversion of the Constitution. No matter how inured we may be to political immorality, all this—if true—is of a different order, and creates a sense of crisis. We naturally turn to precedents in a crisis; the past has banked its wisdom and it is foolish not to draw on it. But since there are no precedents actually in point, we make the error of reaching for precedents not in point. And since the abuses charged, whatever they technically may be, are crimes in that larger sense of the word we often use, we tend to look for guidance to the criminal law.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Accountability, Impeachment and the Constitution

  The Case for a Modernised Process in the United Kingdom

  • Chris Monaghan(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The House of Commons would retain its role as the body that initiates the Impeachment. It is important that the Impeachment process is not seen as being largely politically motivated or partisan game playing. Politics does involve political calculations being made by individuals, groups of parliamentarians, or political parties. This is a feature of politics and it can never be truly altruistic, even if the intention of the actors within the system is to produce an outcome that is the best for the country. The Impeachment procedure would need to safeguard against Impeachments being undertaken to punish or embarrass political opponents. The safeguards will be discussed ahead.

  The House of Commons is the body that initiates the Impeachment and, given the outcome (a trial before the Court of Impeachment, with the prospect of destroying the accused’s career and reputation), there must be sufficient safeguards to ensure that Impeachment occurs only where it is appropriate and is supported by evidence. Put simply, it should not be a question of a new government using its majority in the House of Commons to impeach the former Prime Minister, unless the Prime Minister’s conduct is objectively, or as much as this can be realistically measured, impeachable conduct within the understanding of the constitution. To prevent Impeachment from being used in a purely partisan manner, there would need to be a number of stages that the Impeachment process would go through before the House of Commons voted to impeach. In any event, the decision as to whether the conduct was unconstitutional would be determined by the Court of Impeachment.

  It is proposed that the initial motion to impeach must be supported by a minimum number of Members of Parliament, which would be 12. This would ensure that there is a sufficient number of Members of Parliament who believe that there are grounds to impeach. The next stage would rely upon the neutrality and independence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who would determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, an impeachable offence had been committed. This initial ruling would be an important safeguard as it would act as a filter to block clearly partisan and inappropriate Impeachments. The actual decision of whether there are grounds to impeach would be taken by the Impeachment Committee of the House of Commons, which, assisted by an Independent Panel of Experts, would be responsible for drafting the articles of Impeachment. This would provide external guidance on whether an impeachable offence had been committed. It would be important to show that there had been sufficient consideration of the evidence to justify bringing an Impeachment. The Independent Panel of Experts would be appointed by the Impeachment Committee of the House of Commons and any individual could be appointed so long as it is reasonable to conclude that they are an expert. This would permit a large number of individuals to be approached to undertake this role, including former judges, former politicians, legal practitioners, and academics. It is important to note that the decision of the Impeachment Committee of the House of Commons would be separate from the earlier decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons, which means that there would be two hurdles to overcome for anyone wishing to bring an Impeachment. These two stages would reinforce the point that Impeachment should not involve purely political considerations and would be reserved for cases where it is highly likely that an impeachable offence had been committed.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Checking Executive Power

  Presidential Impeachment in Comparative Perspective

  • Jody C. Baumgartner, Naoko Kada, Jody C. Baumgartner, Naoko Kada(Authors)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  On the other hand, under- standing that the process would inevitably become politicized caused the framers to agree on the two-thirds removal rule. Lacking a coherent defi- nition of impeachable crimes that might be committed by the president, they insured that the nature of the removal process would have to tran- scend politics. If two-thirds of the senators present could agree that the House charges met the threshold of what constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, then the likelihood that politics had driven the process would be lessened. On the other hand, if fewer than two-thirds of the sen- ators were in agreement then the likelihood that politics would be the driving force behind the process was tacitly understood. In fact, the difficulty of how to define an impeachable offense has never been settled, and debate surrounding various Impeachment attempts throughout American history has reflected that fact. For example, during the Impeachment trial of Judge Charles Swayne in 1905, the defense held The Political Nature of Presidential Impeachment in the United States 25 that malfeasance separate from official duties is not impeachable behav- ior. "Excepting bribery there is no case in the parliamentary law of Eng- land which gives color to the idea that the personal misconduct of a judge, in matters outside of his administration of the law in a court of justice, was ever considered or charged to constitute a high crime or misde- meanor." 16 Benjamin F. Butler (R-MA) tried to build the case against Pres- ident Andrew Johnson in purely legal terms.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Clinton Scandal and the Future of American Government

  • Mark J. Rozell, Clyde Wilcox, Mark J. Rozell, Clyde Wilcox(Authors)
  • 2000(Publication Date)
  • Georgetown University Press

    (Publisher)

  Consequently, every Impeachment (including the most recent one) has featured a debate over whether the misconduct charged constitutes a political crime. As these debates have shown, it is practically impossible to get the House or the Senate to adopt a uniform standard for determining the impeachability of misconduct. The resolutions of these debates track the historic practice of each member deciding for him or herself the proper resolution of a series of procedural issues. 37 Debates over the proper definition of impeachable offenses in Congress have thus featured tugs-of-war: Those seeking Impeachment defend relatively broad, amorphous standards that they can show have been easily met in a given case, and those opposing Impeachment support very narrow standards that they claim have not been met in the specific circum-stances of the case before them. Debates over the scope of impeachable offenses in particular cases have not produced any useful guidelines; however, Senate judgments in Impeachment trials do reveal an interesting pattern. The seven federal officials the Senate has convicted and removed from office (all federal judgeships) have had in common misconduct that (1) has caused a serious injury to the republic and (2) has had a nexus between the official's misconduct and the official's formal duties. 38 In assessing the nexus, members of Congress have taken into account the degree to which certain misconduct has been either so outrageous or so thoroughly disabling or incompatible with an official's duties as to give Congress no choice but to remove an official.39 In President Clinton's Impeachment trial, several senators explained their acquittal votes on the basis of the absence of one or more of these elements. Yet another possible consequence of President Clinton's impeach-ment is the public impression that Impeachment is just another political event.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Impeachment Report

  The Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, with Dissenting Views from Republicans

  • U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Hot Books

    (Publisher)

  That interpretation is also most consistent with the structure of the Constitution. This is true in three respects.

  First, as explained above, the Impeachment Clause restricts the consequences of Impeachment to removal from office and disqualification from future federal officeholding. That speaks to the fundamental character of Impeachment. In Justice Story’s words, it is “a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property; but simply divests him of his political capacity.”323 Given that Impeachment exists to address threats to the political system, applies only to political officials, and responds only by stripping political power, it makes sense to infer that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are offenses against the political system rather than indictable crimes.

  Second, if Impeachment were restricted to crimes, Impeachment proceedings would be restricted to deciding whether the President had committed a specific crime. Such a view would create tension between the Impeachment Clause and other provisions of the Constitution. For example, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being tried twice for the same crime. Yet the Impeachment Clause contemplates that an official, once removed, can still face “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” It would be strange if the Framers forbade double jeopardy, yet allowed the President to be tried in court for crimes after Congress convicted him in a proceeding that necessarily (and exclusively) decided whether he was guilty of those very same crimes.324 That oddity is avoided only if Impeachment proceedings are seen “in noncriminal terms,” which occurs if impeachable offenses are understood as distinct from indictable crimes.325

  Finally

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Attempt to Impeach Donald Trump - Declassified Government Documents, Investigation of Russian Election Interference & Legislative Procedures for the Impeachment

  Overview of Constitutional Provisions for President Impeachment, Russian Cyber Activities, Russian Intelligence Activities, Calls for Trump Impeachment, Testimony of James Comey and other Documents

  • White House, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, U.S. Congress, National Intelligence Council, Elizabeth B. Bazan(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Madison & Adams Press

    (Publisher)

  13 a resolution to impeach Secretary of Defense Donald R. Rumsfeld (2004) (referred to House Judiciary Committee, and then to the Subcommittee on the Constitution); a resolution to impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney (two in 2007) (one referred to House Judiciary, the other to House Judiciary Committee, and then to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties); and a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors (2007) (referred to the House Rules Committee).

  As is apparent from the instances noted above, the Impeachment mechanism, while not used frequently, has provided a means of exploring allegations of misconduct involving, with the one notable exception of Senator Blount, civil officers from both the judicial and executive branches. The bulk of the inquiries begun have not resulted in Impeachment trials; of those which have gone to trial, less than half of them have led to convictions, all involving federal judges. The Impeachment process provides a means of monitoring and checking misconduct by such officials through the use of a legislative forum. The mechanism is a cumbersome one which takes time away from other legislative business. Yet its very cumbersomeness might be viewed as necessary to minimize the chance that so serious a course would be engaged in lightly; in this light, its complex and somewhat unwieldy nature could be considered an attempt to deter unwarranted legislative intrusions into the business and personnel of the other two branches. The Impeachment process might be seen as a constitutional effort to balance these two countervailing forces.

  1 The House also impeached and voted articles of Impeachment against George W. English, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois (Impeachment proceedings from 1925-1926), and the House Managers appeared before the Senate to advise the Senate of the House action. The Senate organized for the Impeachment trial the next day, the required oath was administered to the Senators, the Managers appeared, and a summons was issued to Judge English to appear to answer the articles of Impeachment brought against him. On the date required, Judge English appeared with counsel and presented his answer. The following day the House Managers filed their replication to the answer, and the Senate set the trial for November 10, 1926. However, on November 4, 1926, Judge English resigned from office and the President accepted his resignation. On November 10, 1926, the chairman of the House Managers advised the Senate of the judge’s resignation and its acceptance by the President, and sought a delay to permit the Managers to advise the House of their recommendation that the Impeachment proceedings be dismissed. The Senate trial was adjourned until December 13, 1926. On December 11, 1926, while stating that the resignation did not affect the Senate’s authority to try the matter, the House Managers recommended to the House that the Impeachment proceedings be discontinued. VI CANNON’S §§ 544-547, at 778-785. The House voted to accept the Managers’ recommendation. 68 Cong. Rec. 297 (1926), discussed in a Committee Print entitled CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL Impeachment, REPORT BY THE STAFF OF THE Impeachment INQUIRY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 93rd Congress, 2d Sess. 52-54 (Comm. Print February 1974). The Senate, having been advised by the House Managers that the House wished to discontinue the proceedings in light of Judge English’s resignation, passed a resolution dismissing the Impeachment proceedings on December 13, 1926. 68 Cong. Rec. 344, 348 (1926). This matter is sometimes counted as a 17th Impeachment proceeding as the preliminary matters in the Senate had begun in preparation for a full trial on the merits, and the Senate terminated the Impeachment proceedings by formal vote. Compare, the inclusion of Judge English’s Impeachment in the list of Senate Impeachment trials on the United States Senate website found at http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/ Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm, with

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Under the Iron Dome

  Congress from the Inside

  • Paul Herrnson, Colton Campbell, David Dulio(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Impeachment in the House has a separate and distinct function that should not be controlled by the likelihood of conviction in the Senate. As noted, Impeachment, particularly where the president is concerned, is a highly political process. The public has a legitimate need to be made aware of serious misconduct by the president, even if political considerations preclude conviction. That a Republican-controlled Senate refuses to convict a Republican president is neither a seal of approval nor an exoneration. Rather, it underscores the hard fact that, where the president is concerned, Impeachment is extremely political. Again, as Gerald Ford practically observed years ago, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House considers it to be at a given moment in history. Of course, Ford went on to be the 38th president of the United States after Richard Nixon resigned in the face of an Impeachment by the House of Representatives, and Ford controversially pardoned his disgraced predecessor.

  A third question about the Trump Impeachment is should the Impeachment process have deferred to the electoral process, given that a presidential election was less than a year away? Would it have been better to just leave it to the voters to decide whether or not the president should remain in office? The Impeachment process is far more likely to explore the issues in a judicious manner than is a hotly contested political election. The electoral process is not always conducive to a considered analysis of the facts. Given that only one Republican senator voted for conviction on a single article of Impeachment, it raises the question: Is Impeachment the effective check on the actions of the chief executive envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

  Any legal process was largely absent—there were no live witnesses, no cross-examination, and no documentary evidence of any kind. Is this consistent with the “ trial” in the Senate called for by the Constitution?

  Conclusion

  The constitutional process of Impeachment has worked well when federal officials other than the president are impeached. It is cumbersome and time-consuming, but that is as it should be. It is no small matter to remove a federal judge who has a lifetime appointment. At its core, Impeachment is not punitive. Rather, it is intended to protect the public and the institutions of government from those who have shown themselves unworthy of holding federal office. As Alexander Hamilton put it: “ Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men?”15

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  An Affair of State

  The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton

  • Richard A. Posner(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Harvard University Press

    (Publisher)

  C H A P T E R 3 • The History, Scope, and Form of Impeachment History and Scope The Constitution provides that the President and other federal officials shall be removed from office, and may be barred from holding a federal office in the future, upon Impeachment by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and conviction by a two-thirds vote of the Senate of treason, bribery, or ‘‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ 1 The Sen-ate may not impose any additional sanctions, although the impeached and convicted official remains liable to punishment in the ordinary course of criminal justice. 2 The meaning of the quoted language is critical to whether President Clinton committed impeachable offenses. And since ‘‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’’ is not defined in the Constitution and is not modern terminology (in modern legal parlance, a misdemeanor is a minor crime, generally a crime for which the maximum punishment is a year in prison), it is natural, though not necessarily fruitful, to look to history for guidance. Another possibly critical issue besides the meaning of the quoted phrase, one on which the constitutional text is also silent, is what procedures should be followed in an Impeachment and in partic-ular what standard of proof should govern the Senate’s trial of an im-peached official—whether guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial, or whether a lesser degree of certitude is sufficient. 3 It is natural to seek help with the answers to these questions, too, in history. 1 U.S. Const., art. II, § 4; see also art. I, § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6. 2 Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. 3 The Senate has adopted ‘‘Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting 96 An Affair of State Impeachment can be traced back to the fourteenth century in En-gland.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book