to the Constitution. Someone who would willingly assist our enemies, or trade public power for personal favors, is the kind of person likely to break the rules again if they remain in office. But there is more: both "Treason" and "Bribery" are serious offenses with the capacity to corrupt constitutional governance and harm the Nation itself; both involve wrongdoing that reveals the President as a continuing threat if left in power; and both offenses are "plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books."[1] Looking to the Constitution's text and history—including the British, colonial, and early American traditions discussed earlier—these characteristics also define "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
With that understanding in place, the records of the Constitutional Convention offer even greater clarity. They demonstrate that the Framers principally intended impeachment for three forms of Presidential wrongdoing: serious abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements, and corruption of office and elections. When the President engages in such misconduct, and does so in ways that are recognizably wrong and injurious to our political system, impeachment is warranted. That is proven not only by debates surrounding adoption of the Constitution, but also by the historical practice of the House in exercising the impeachment power.
As Justice Robert Jackson wisely observed, "the purpose of the Constitution was not only to grant power, but to keep it from getting out of hand."[2] Nowhere is that truer than in the Presidency. As the Framers created a formidable chief executive, they made clear that impeachment is justified for serious abuse of power. Edmund Randolph was explicit on this point. In explaining why the Constitution must authorize Presidential impeachment, he warned that "the Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power."[3]Madison, too, stated that impeachment is necessary because the President "might pervert his administration into a scheme of … oppression."[4] This theme echoed through the state ratifying conventions. Advocating that New York ratify the Constitution, Hamilton set the standard for impeachment at an "abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] In South Carolina, Charles Pinckney agreed that Presidents must be removed who "behave amiss or betray their public trust."[6] In Massachusetts, Reverend Samuel Stillman asked, "With such a prospect [of impeachment], who will dare to abuse the powers vested in him by the people."[7] Time and again, Americans who wrote and ratified the Constitution confirmed that Presidents may be impeached for abusing the power entrusted to them.
- ↑ Charles L. Black Jr. & Philip Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook, New Edition 34 (2018).
- ↑ Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 640 (Jackson, J., concurring).
- ↑ 2 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention at 67.
- ↑ Id. at 65-66.
- ↑ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 65 at 426.
- ↑ Berger, Impeachment at 94.
- ↑ 2 Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions at 169.
43
