Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach high officials for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I also gives the Senate the power to try those impeachments. Impeachment proceedings may only result in removal from office and not in any criminal or civil charges originating from Congress. The House has impeached only two presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) since the country’s founding and both times the Senate voted to acquit. Lawmakers in the 1970s were close to considering impeachment proceedings after Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Figure 1 demonstrates the effect Watergate had on public opinion of President Nixon: as is seen in the graph, only 57% of the public believed that the president should be removed from high office (Moore 2018). While 57% transcends a simple majority, in the greater context of impeachment, political leaders were faced with deciding if that was a high enough figure for them to take such significant Constitutional action. Figure 2 shows the public support and disapproval of impeaching President Trump. These graphs help underscore the role that public approval for certain decisions plays in the congressional decision-making process.
The Founding Fathers created a constitutional system that is telling of how significant impeachment is. Supermajorities are necessary in both houses of Congress in order to impeach and convict. The U.S. House under Speaker Pelosi has been under constant pressure from many Democrats to impeach President Trump at least for charges of obstruction of justice that allegedly occurred during the Mueller Probe. In the past week, new allegations have surfaced of sexual misconduct by recently-confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In autumn of 2018, Kavanaugh underwent a Supreme Court seat confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate. The process was incredibly contentious as the then-D.C. Circuit Court judge was widely praised by conservatives and just as criticized by liberals, especially in the context of the #MeToo movement. Over this past weekend, The New York Times published a story detailing how not only did a former Yale classmate see Kavanaugh behaving inappropriately, but that the FBI did not investigate other misconduct claims last year. While arguably only the most morally sound and upstanding political leaders should be formulating, executing and interpreting the nation’s laws, impeachment is an incredibly serious affair that should transcend partisan bickering.
Though Kavanaugh was not charged with sexual assault, recent impeachment discussions around the president and high court justice point lawmakers towards answering a fundamental question: What should representatives do if they find impeachment to be morally sound and overwhelming evidence points to guilt, but public sentiment no longer favors impeachment? This kind of question forces legislators to consider their principal role as representatives. As highlighted in The United States Congress, representatives must be substantive, meaning they should try to maximize policy congruence. Policy congruence refers to the idea that legislation matches what the people, especially constituents, want (Adler, Jenkins and Shipan pg. 90, 2019). This concept eventually demands that lawmakers address their personal goals while in office. According to Fenno and Mayhew (Hager 2018), a distinct relationship between congressional lawmakers and their policies centers around what policies are most likely to get the representative re-elected. Arguably, impeaching President Trump and/or Justice Kavanaugh will not appear productive to many liberals and will not appear moral to the conservative base.
The topic of impeachment in today’s era means the process will be incredibly political. Instead of lawmakers acknowledging credible evidence, the vendettas of both major political parties seem to be Congress’ number one priority. While some constituents might agree with that approach, many see the hyper-partisan fight over impeachment as counterproductive. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argues against formally ousting President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh: “We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic...If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families” (Everett and Caygle 2019). When analyzing the subject of impeachment, one must consider the following question: Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee against partisan motives as the reason for impeachment? Members on both sides of the political isle argue that the two-thirds vote threshold is too high and should be lowered, while other bipartisan voices argue that two-thirds ensures that the Constitution is a foundation of democracy and should not be subjected to the political whims of the public. Representative Barbara Jordan proudly argues that despite its flaws on racial and gender equality, the U.S. Constitution maintains its profound and honorable status: “My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total”, with Sanford Levinson adding, “If it was good enough for them [the Founders], it was good enough for me” (Toobin 2019). The multitude of political values mixed with a constitutional context demonstrates why impeachment is incredibly controversial in contemporary U.S. politics.
The topic of impeachment in today’s era means the process will be incredibly political. Instead of lawmakers acknowledging credible evidence, the vendettas of both major political parties seem to be Congress’ number one priority. While some constituents might agree with that approach, many see the hyper-partisan fight over impeachment as counterproductive. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argues against formally ousting President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh: “We’ve got to get beyond this ‘impeachment is the answer to every problem.’ It’s not realistic...If that’s how we are identified in Congress, as the impeachment Congress, we run the risk that people will feel we’re ignoring the issues that mean a lot to them as families” (Everett and Caygle 2019). When analyzing the subject of impeachment, one must consider the following question: Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee against partisan motives as the reason for impeachment? Members on both sides of the political isle argue that the two-thirds vote threshold is too high and should be lowered, while other bipartisan voices argue that two-thirds ensures that the Constitution is a foundation of democracy and should not be subjected to the political whims of the public. Representative Barbara Jordan proudly argues that despite its flaws on racial and gender equality, the U.S. Constitution maintains its profound and honorable status: “My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total”, with Sanford Levinson adding, “If it was good enough for them [the Founders], it was good enough for me” (Toobin 2019). The multitude of political values mixed with a constitutional context demonstrates why impeachment is incredibly controversial in contemporary U.S. politics.
Possible resolutions to the frenzy around impeachment include proactive measures heading forward in the 2020 Democratic race. Instead of dragging out impeachment trials in front of what seems to be a majority of the public that does not still favor the idea, the goal of the Democratic Party should be to mobilize and unite its base to vote. Major education and persuasion efforts should be made to fully convey what legal and political matters are at stake, especially in the U.S. Senate race. A major focus of the 2016 presidential election was a Supreme Court opening and potential openings, so Democrats might consider focusing more on flipping the U.S. Senate instead of trying to impeach a President and Justice whose base believes they have done no moral wrongs.
Works Cited
Adler, E. Scott, Jeffery A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan. 2019. The United States Congress. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Everett, Burgess, and Heather Caygle. 2019. “'Get Real': Senior Democrats Shut Down Kavanaugh Impeachment Push.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/democrats-brett-kavanaugh-impeachment-calls-1499444 (September 16, 2019).
Hager, Lisa. 2018. “Are Members of Congress Simply ‘Single-Minded Seekers of Reelection’? An Examination of Legislative Behavior in the 114th Congress.” Cambridge University Press51(1). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals (September 16, 2019).
Moore, David W. 2018. “Public Divided on Donald Trump Impeachment: USA Today/IMediaEthics.” iMediaEthics. https://www.imediaethics.org/imediaethics-usatoday-poll-public-divided-impeachment-donald-trump/ (September 16, 2019).
Toobin, Jeffrey. 2019. “Our Broken Constitution.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/our-broken-constitution (September 16, 2019).
I think your last point is really interesting because as the United States whether we believe it or not, we have seen that the current President has done some wrong doings when it came to the last election however; just having the Democrats focus on taking the Senate would be crucial to not having the President pass any law he thinks he can. Since two-thirds majority is the barrier here and there are arguments to what it would be to adjust that ratio, I think it is reasonable because it would be a representation on that something has been done so that President should be impeached. I also agree that since the powers of the President are very influential and crucial to the well being of the United States thus, the act of impeachment is very serious and the reason why only two Presidents have been impeached which creates a turmoil within the government and with the citizens even though we do have steps in place that keeps the government running.
ReplyDeleteWonderful Article. I think it is true that the liberal fantasies of impeachment are dead. After the mueller report, to the countless judiciary committee hearings, I think it is beating a dead horse. You rise good points about how Justice Kavanaugh was similar and hurt the democratic party especially with 2020 around the corner.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGood job! It is very interesting that only 57% of the public thought that Nixon should be removed from office, I would have thought that it would be more than that. When it comes to arguments in the political sphere, we often hear more about what the office holders think over the people themselves. It would be interesting to see what the opinions on impeachment are among citizens. I think you made some good points, and that instead of worrying about partisan squabbles, the parties should focus at the bigger problems at hand, like running the country.