Impeachment: An Overview

The process of Presidential Impeachment is intended to be a political safeguard for the people and the US government to prevent being taken advantage of by anyone in office. The process is hundreds of years old and has been reinvented to fit the United States’ unique democracy. Its consideration as an addition to a limitation of the President was a subject of passionate debate in the construction of the Constitution. And in the process of the ratification of the law as it is known today, even opposing minds like Hamilton’s and Madison’s came together to help the people of their time understand the government they would be choosing. Impeachment is a political process that is intended to keep corruption and bad leaders out of power.

America has a very long history with Impeachment. Lots of US officials, most of them judges, have been impeached in the US. However, there have not been so many presidents to experience impeachment. The impeachment of a judge isn’t so newsworthy and that may be why it seems pretty pointless to talk about it. But when it happens to a president, suddenly there are a lot of unanswered questions. The US Constitution’s grounds for impeachment say 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.” One of the most discussed questions of Impeachment of late asks what the impeachment process is and what it means. Impeachment is nothing more than a political process that is intended to root out corruption and ensure the honesty of our political leaders and it’s older than American democracy.

              Impeachment dates back to the days of the power of kings and queens of England and an article called, Getting medieval: impeachment's roots go back to 14th-century England; Before the power to hold public officials to account was written into the US constitution it had a long history in English law, published by The Guardian explains that the practice was mostly for the oversight, removal, and, in some cases, the execution of royal ministers. A practice that didn’t follow the founding fathers across the sea when they began framing what their democracy would look like. However, impeachment remained and with some passion behind it because it didn’t accuse an official of breaking any specific law. It was committing “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which meant that an official of the highest court had done something that didn’t reflect well on the government, their position, or some other perceived slight. The founding fathers had a well-developed understanding of English politics and while they certainly didn’t like the politics, there were parts of governing they really liked, and they were written into the Constitution. The way our Congress has two houses is parliamentary and is another good example of how US Government kept a British tinge.

              That British tinge was redesigned and instead of preventing corruption in the royal court, it was put in place to protect the people who were being governed by their government. James Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 cover a debate held on July 20^th that discuss the impeachment of the chief Magistrate, or the president as it is known now. Madison’s notes detail a discussion among himself, Ben Franklin, Edmund Randolph, and Gouverneur Morris where a debate on whether the top elected official should be subject to impeachment as other elected officials were. Randolph is noted by Madison to be of particular importance because to Randolph this was the proper way to deal with an official who was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Randolph argues for impeachment pointing out that a president would have some serious opportunities to abuse his power and that he should be held accountable saying “guilt wherever found ought to be punished” because if no enforcement were in place, then anyone who wanted would and could abuse their power. Franklin backed Randolph’s argument telling an anecdote of a well-known corrupt official whose position had no impeachment process and how far out of hand things got. There was argument against saying that the presidency was narrow enough for impeachment to be unnecessary, but ultimately, Morris’ point won because the people needed to be able to defend themselves against the highest elected office just like any other part of the government.

              Debates like these among the people of the states lead Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to write the Federalist Papers. The two were, for the most part political opposites, but they had some common ground and they came together to publish these papers that helped a nation of people to become just that. In Federalist Paper No. 69 The Real Character of the Executive, Hamilton summarizes that the president is always “liable to be impeached, tried,  and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Hamilton also points out that since the President is not the same as a king, then he is subject to the same punishment that a Governor would be. It is clear that the founding fathers intended to make the language as adaptable as they possibly could because it is easy to abuse power without breaking the law.

              Through thorough examination of history and the well-kept notes and documents of the founding fathers, impeachment can be decoded and its purpose in government made clearer during a modern crisis of media. Rather than drown in a seemingly infinite sea of information that the internet provides, a close look at what was left behind by men who believed in freedom and what was right is more beneficial to us all. The US has a complex system of government, but the founding fathers have left behind all the tools needed to be able to understand their purpose.