Introduction
Impeachment refers to a political trail that is conducted in order to remove the President of the United States from office. “In American Constitution, the term impeachment refers to a trail initiated by the House of Representatives and conducted by the Senate” (p. 654). In other words, the House decides whether or not there are grounds to impeach the President and the Senate conducts the trial in order to discover a verdict. Impeachment is not something that has happened a lot throughout history. In fact, Congress has only had serious discussions of impeachment for three presidents: Andrew, Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. This paper discusses the presidential impeachment process in relation to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
The impeachment process requires votes from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, both houses have different responsibilities in the impeachment process. First, the House decides whether or not there are proper grounds in order to impeach the president. If the House decides there are then the Senate holds a formal trial for the impeachment (Hinojosa, 2006, p. 655).
The first part of the impeachment process involves the House of Representatives. The first step is deciding whether or not there are grounds for impeachment. This is decided by the House Judiciary Committee. If the House finds that there grounds, then the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a formal inquiry regarding the impeachment. Based on this inquiry, the committee will then send a resolution to the House stating whether or not the impeachment is warranted. Then, the Full House will decided over the Articles of Impeachment. If any of the Articles of Impeachment are approved by majority vote, then the President of the United States will become “impeached”. However, there still has to be a trail in regards to the impeachment (Hinojosa, 2006, p. 655).
Next, the Senate receives the Articles of Impeachment The senate then formulates procedures and rules in order to hold a trial. The President should be represented by lawyers. The prosecutors will consist of a selected members of the House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside. Also, all of the one hundred Senators act as the jury. After the trial has been conducted, the senate will meet in order to determine a verdict. The Senate works on a 2/3 voting process. If two-thirds of the Senate decides to impeach the present, the Senate will then result in a conviction for the President. The Senate will then formally remove the President from his presidential duties. The Senate also has the option of prohibiting the President from every holding public office any time in the future (Hinojosa, 2006, p. 655).
Bill Clinton
On February 12, 1999, after a thirteen-months of debating, the Senate decided not to convict President Clinton under the two articles of impeachment that was passed against him in the House of Representatives. The first article alleged that President Clinton was guilty of perjury before a federal grand jury. The second allegation was that President Clint was guilty of obstruction of justice. “The impeachment proceedings in the House and the Senate sparked a national dialogue about the Constitution, the use of legalism, and the role of the media and of personal investigation of public figures” (Lee, 1999).
In Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, it states “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed by Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Longley, 2016). President Clinton was accused of eleven acts in which qualified him for removal of office. However, several individuals believed those acts classify under Article II of the Constitution. President Clinton did not commit any forms of Treason or Bribery, however, it is up to the House of Representatives what is considered High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Slusar, 1999).
According to constitutional lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors are (1) real criminality – breaking a law, (2) abuses of power, (3) violation of public trust” (Longley, 2016). Violation of public trust is defined in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton. In 1970, Representative Gerald Ford defined impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” (Longley, 2016). In the past, Congress has used three general categories under the Articles of Impeachments. These categories are: (1) exceeding the powers of presidency, (2) behavior that is incompatible with the job of President, and (3) using the presidential power for personal gain or other improper purpose. The House of Representatives believed that President Clinton behavior did fit under one or more of these categories.
President Clinton’s impeachment process was surrounding around the idea that the language under Article II, Section 4 could be taken in two different ways. First, in order for the President to be impeached, he must have committed mal-practice or neglect of duty. Another way of interpreting the language of Article II, Section 4 would be any act that the President should not conduct while in office. During the Clinton impeachment process, the second version of interpretation was used (Hinojosa, 2006, p. 655).
Several people did not agree with the Clinton impeachment because they believed he did not violate public trust, and his actions were not high enough to be considered High Crimes and Misdemeanors. There were thirteen constitutional law scholars who asserted in a House Committee hearing because they alleged that President Clinton’s behavior did not violate public trust. These scholars argued that President Clinton’s actions did not rise to the level of obstruction of justice because “his actions did not involve the derelict exercises of executive powers” (Lee, 1999).
Furthermore, four hundred historians made a public statement regarding President Clintons conduct. They argued that the President’s conduct did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses “because the Constitution contemplates impeachment only for high crimes and misdemeanors in the exercise of executive power” (Lee, 1999). These historians believed that President Clinton’s conduct was involving private conduct and was not an exercise of executive power. In other words, President Clinton was engaging in this behavior during his private life and it had not regards to his job as President. One of the requirements under the impeachment process requires proof of abuse of executive power. President Clinton, in this situation, did not abuse his executive power.
After the Clinton impeachment process, Congress did acknowledge the vagueness of Article II, Section 4. Due to General Ford’s definition of impeachable offensive, it is believed that impeachable conduct is any conduct that 2/3’s of congress deems is impeachable. This was very apparent throughout the Clinton impeachment process. However, fixing this universal definition may be impossible, however.
The High Crimes and Misdemeanors element of the impeachment clause is considered vague and difficult to interpret. Spectators do not understand what it takes in order to impeach a president. Some believe that the high crimes and misdemeanors clause just simply means that an impeachable offense is whatever
It is believed that if Congress does not take action and resolving the vagueness of the constitution, then the country will be left open for the possibility of a constitutional crisis. “A situation could easily arise when a substantia; disagreement in process of standard results in the constitutionality and, therefore, the legitimacy of an impeachment, being disputed by senators, pundits, or even a President who refuses to leave office” (Slusar, 1999). In other words, the vagueness makes it difficult to impeach a president who needs to be impeached.
Conclusion
Impeachment is not something that happens often. It has only happened three times in the history of the United States. However, President Clinton’s impeachment process brought up several problems regarding the definition of impeachable offenses. President Clinton did not commit any major crimes regarding his power of office. He did not commit Treason or Bribery. Thus, this made several people question whether or not President Clinton fit under the vague scoop of the definition for impeachable offenses. Several individuals throughout the realm of the law discussed their views on the Clinton impeachment. Several individuals thought that President Clinton’s actions did not qualify as impeachable act. Given the fact that President Clinton’s actions were conducted in his private life and he was not abusing his power, there are several individuals who believe his actions were not considered impeachable offenses. Congress should attempt to limit the vagueness under Article II, Section 4. It is believed that the vagueness of this Article could lead to Congressional issues in the future. Congress needs to correct the language in order to limit negative effects in the future.
References
Hinojosa, V. (2006). Presidential survival and the impeachment process: the United States and Colombia. Political Science Quarterly, 121(4), 653-675.
Lee, T. (1999). The Clinton impeachment and the constitution: introduction to the Federalist society panel. Brigham Young University Law Review, 4.
Longley, R. (2016). Impeachment: the unthinkable process. Retrieved on 13 March 2016, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm
Slusar, M. (1999). The confusion defined: questions and problems of process in the aftermath of the Clinton impeachment. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 49(4).
