Concerning Impeachment

            On May 25, 1787, fifty-five delegates from 12 of the 13 original states gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to modify and strengthen the Articles of Confederation. Though this was the intended purpose, what actually occurred was the delegates drafted a completely new document: The United States Constitution. Over the next 4 months, the members debated the merits of what should and should not be included in the newly forming government. 

On July 20, in front of the other 54 delegates, George Mason of Virginia asked, “Shall any man be above justice?” Mason was, of course, referring to whomever might be lucky enough to be elected President of the United States of America. This question was posed as the delegates debated over whether or not the Constitution should include an impeachment clause. Unsurprisingly, most of the delegates wanted to assure that there was no possibility they would end up being governed as they had under the rule of King George III and the British Parliament. And yet, they also wanted to make sure that whomever was in power had the ability to make decisions without fear of reprisal. As Gouverneur Morris of New York, who at first argued against the clause, stated, impeachment could “render the Executive dependent on those who will impeach.” Yet, even Morris, who was one of the more staunch opponents of impeachment, eventually came around. Later that day he conceded, “corruption and some other offenses ought to be impeachable.” 

Morris’s conversion shouldn’t be surprising considering the number of his peers who argued in favor of impeachment. There was James Madison, co-author of The Federalist Papers and eventual 4th President of the United States, who argued that impeachment was necessary “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy” - deceitfulness - “of the Chief Magistrate.” According to William Richardson Davie of North Carolina, if the President was not “impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever, to get himself reelected.” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts believed, “A good magistrate will not fear them [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” He went on to add that he “hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.” Others spoke on the topic as well. James Wilson of Pennsylvania expounded by saying, 

“The executive power is better to be trusted when it has no screen. Sir, we have a responsibility in the person of our President; he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention...Add to all this, that officer is placed high, and is possessed of power far from being contemptible, yet not a single privilege, is annexed to his character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.” 

In essence, the President’s actions, though he is granted a position of great power, should be transparent, and if he should act in any way unpresidential, he, by being a citizen first, is subject to the laws governing all citizens. This sentiment was shared by Edmund Randolph of Virginia: 

 “Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power...and in some respects, the money will be in his hands. Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted with tumults and insurrections.” 

Once the delegates agreed to include an impeachment clause in the Constitution (which would apply to many civil officers, the President being only one of them), other details had to be decided. For what could the President (or other official) be impeached and who would carry out the process of impeachment? For the latter, it was decided the responsibility would belong to Congress. The House of Representatives would wield the power of charging the President with wrongdoing and also be tasked with the subsequent investigation of said wrongdoing. The Senate would hold the trial to determine whether or not the offense(s) rise to the level of requiring the official’s removal from office. 

On the question of what transgressions would lead to the House to consider such measures, there was also a great deal of discussion. Madison was concerned the President “might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation” - fraud/embezzlement - “or oppression” or  “he might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Gouveneur Morris, after changing his mind on impeachment, declared the Executive ought to be, “impeachable for treachery. Corrupting his electors, and incapacity, were other causes of impeachment.” 

The delegates from Virginia pointed to historical examples to outline what might invoke the impeachment clause. In 1640, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, went before the British House of Commons because he, “traitorously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realm.” (Though the impeachment failed, because his misconduct did not meet the definition of treason, he was eventually convicted and hanged on a bill of attainder based on the tyrannical methods he used as Lord Deputy of Ireland.) George Mason made a point about the case of Warren Hastings happening concurrently in Britain. “Hastings is not guilty of treason,” he said. In fact, Hastings was impeached for abuses of power, chiefly corruption. 

After all the debate, no consensus could be met and the matter was tabled. At that time, the phrase ‘malpractice or neglect of duty’ was penciled in and it was thus turned over to one of the committees of eleven (that dealing with postponed business). It was this committee’s task to review and amend topics for later discussion. While this issue resided with this appointed group of delegates, it was decided ‘malpractice or neglect of duty’ should be amended to the much more narrow ‘treason and bribery.’ 

In September 1787, when the topic was raised once again to the entire delegation, many were not content with that narrower definition. George Mason argued that limiting the scope to treason and bribery “will not reach many great and dangerous offences” or “attempts to subvert the Constitution.” He was concerned that as President, it would be too easy to abuse the power that came with the office. He proposed ‘maladministration’ be added to ‘treason and bribery’, but Madison and Morris thought the term too vague, so Mason suggested ‘high crimes and misdemeanors against the state’ be used in lieu. And so it was that the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4, states “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.” 

            Having laid out some of the history behind the inclusion of Article II, Section 4 in the United States Constitution, I want to outline my thoughts on the impeachment of Donald Trump. I know the impeachment is over but I believe there is still a discussion to be had. To be frank, I am a person with strong liberal leanings. Many will think that admission alone clouds my judgment. And yet, I spent days researching the information I laid out above. I wanted to be able to say the things I believe to be true have merit based on not only my own personal feelings but also the history of this great nation. 

In response to those (supporters of President Trump, Representatives in the House, Senators, among others) who claimed the articles of impeachment brought against Donald Trump were unjustified because he hadn’t actually committed a crime, that is simply incorrect. The first article of impeachment brought against the President was for abuse of power. If we take just a moment to review the history it is clear ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was included to protect the country from exactly this type of transgression. The framers knew that with any position of power comes the inherent possibility that someone will use that power inappropriately. So yes, abuse of power, though not a statutory crime, is still an impeachable offense. 

            On the other hand, the second article of impeachment, obstruction of justice, levied against President Trump, is an actual crime. It is defined in Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the United States Code. And did the White House commit obstruction of justice? Of course they did. There really should be no debate here. The White House refused to hand over scores of documents to the House of Representatives and prevented multiple witnesses from speaking to them as well, in direct defiance of Congressional subpoenas. Both are clear attempts to obstruct justice. 

However, I harbored no secret delusion that President Trump would be convicted of either offense by the Senate. Currently, our society (and federal government) have become too partisan for that to occur. To reach a two-thirds majority would have been impossible. It is just upsetting how far people will go to pretend the events that led to this moment are inconsequential. President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid money from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation on Hunter Biden. We should all be outraged for numerous reasons. 

Let us first tackle the withholding of funds. Not only should that be deemed morally reprehensible because Ukraine needed it for security matters, but it is also in direct conflict with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The ICA states that the President cannot withhold funds already allocated without first notifying Congress. President Trump failed to do this. 

Now in some ways I can understand people not being upset about the money. Ultimately the hold was lifted and the funds were released. In my opinion, what is more troubling is the fact that a President of the United States was asking a foreign entity to dig up dirt on one of his political rivals. Even if you believe he was doing it simply because he was truly concerned about Hunter Biden’s involvement, what he did was still wrong. That type of investigation could have been handled internally by the US Department of Justice. Asking another nation to involve itself in our politics is a dangerous game. Multiple Founding Fathers warned us of this type of behavior, see Madison above. Yet I believe the greatest case was made by George Washington in his Presidential Farewell Address, but the context in which he warns us is extremely important. Washington was excoriating partisanship, explaining that it 

“agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” 

Opening the door to foreign influence through the channels of party passions is exactly what occurred here. Although, to be fair, it may have been due to personal passions rather than party passions. However, the result is the same. It’s not the first time this president has made this appeal either. President Trump, in public, has also asked Russia and China to do similar things. How are we, as citizens, not more upset about this? 

Please understand, I know a great many people are angry about it, but there should be many many more. For those of you who are not angered, let me ask you this: If President Obama had done this, would you not be raging? Be honest with yourself. Many of you would have been passionately opposed. I would like to think I would have been as well. I voted for Obama and overall believe he was a decent president. But I’m also a principled person and I trust had he committed similar sins, I would have been greatly distressed. 

            We, as citizens, have a duty to hold our elected officials to high standards. We have a duty to expect them to act in accordance with the law. Our electing them to positions of great responsibility, authority, and power is an honor but it does not place them above jurisprudence. They are citizens like you and I. That’s the whole point of democracy. We elect someone to represent us because they are one of us. Whether they have money or stature, are lawyers or businesspersons, speak eloquently, are well-educated, et cetera, et cetera, matters not. They are first and foremost United States citizens, as are you, as am I. Are we above the law? Of course not, and neither are they. 

            In many respects, I am no longer speaking about President Trump alone, I’m speaking about all of our elected officials. From President of the United States down to treasurer of the local bowling league, all should be held accountable. If any individual elected to their position is not performing their duties properly, or worse, is exploiting the office for personal gain, then we as electors have every right, and more importantly, the duty, to strip that individual of the responsibilities bestowed upon them. 

            Now sometimes, much like the situation in which we find ourselves at present, not everybody will agree on whether an official should be removed from office. Even though I’m reluctant to say this, that is okay. What should not be acceptable is allowing one side to whitewash a contentious subject just because it is in their power to do so. That is what upsets me most about the recently concluded Senate impeachment ‘trial’. As I mentioned previously, there was no possibility President Trump would have been removed from office, yet we, the voting public, were denied the chance to hear all of the facts. We were denied by the White House itself, by Mitch McConnell’s farcical Senate trial rules, and by the partisan nature of politics as we currently know it. 

            How have we arrived at a place where we have allowed our partisan differences to rule over common sense, good nature, and pursuit for a better society? We must demand better, not just from those in power but from ourselves as well. We must demand to know all of the facts, even if we believe ultimately that it won’t change our minds. It is our right to know them, our obligation to seek them out, and our duty to use them to hold our elected officials accountable. 

Most of us believe the United States is still a great nation, but it’s slipping, and if we allow individuals and outside influences to tear us apart, it will slip further and not be great much longer. So in the name of good faith and common decency, I ask us all to be more diligent in our roles as citizens. Do not blindly accept and defend the actions of those in office simply because they share your same party affiliation. Do not continue to reelect officers who do not act on the will of the people. And please, I beseech you, do not let the differences you have with your neighbor lead to animosity and division. I make my promise here to not do these things, I just hope you will join me.