Skip to main content

The Logistics of Impeachment in The United States

Impeachment is defined as a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office. In today's political climate, where we face severe polarization of political parties, we hear a lot about impeachment; specifically the want to impeach our current President, Donald Trump. The accusations splatter all over the target, and I do not wish to analyze the validity or intent of any of these accusations. Instead, I want to look at the process of Impeaching a U.S. President. What would the consequences of impeachment be? How would this affect the United States Today? At this point in the Presidency, is it still valid and, for lack of a better term, worth it to continue to try and impeach President Trump?

All of these questions are extremely broad, but by looking into them, I hope to gather a deeper understanding of the power of impeachment. Alder, Jenkins, and Shipan state that impeachment is "the ultimate power Congress has over the President." Within Article II Section 4 of the Constitution, this power is expressly defined and given to Congress. Essentially, if one holding office is convicted of a crime/ misdemeanor, that person will lose their position in Office. Given the history of the United States, however, Impeachment has never seen someone exiting office on account of conviction. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached by the House Of Representatives, yet remained in office as no conviction was made by the Senate(Adler 339). With today's Polarized government, I believe it would see very little progress to attempt Impeachment, as history has shown that one part of our divided government can allow someone to continue to hold office. This would probably infuriate the public today, as, according to a 2016 Article by The Guardian, the public feels less represented by a government with more extreme leanings. This comes more specifically from the 2016 American Values Survey, which saw that most of their sample of 2,010 adults from all 50 states were more moderate in political affiliation than either Liberal or Conservative. With the "public" (and I use that term loosely) feeling less represented with a polarized Government, that population is less likely to accept the decisions made by the Government that should be representing their state and district Values. 

At this point in the Presidency, it is unlikely that we will see the Impeachment of President Trump. With Democratic Primary Debates already well underway, It is more likely that we will see President Trump lose the re-election than lose his current position. The measure of worth falls on the individual, as it is wildly subjective, but with the ongoing debate of impeachment constantly plaguing our daily news, internet ads, and even local conversations, it is important to understand how effective Impeachment has been in the past and how the United States public may react to Impeachment or the lack thereof.  


Adler, E. Scott, et al. The United States Congress. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Jones, Robert P., Daniel Cox, Betsy Cooper, and Rachel Lienesch. “The Divide Over America’s Future: 1950 or 2050? Findings from the 2016 American Values Survey.” PRRI. 2016.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...