"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." --Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
Impeachment Never has a public issue been so heatedly and contentiously debated as the recent impeachment and trial of President Clinton. Impeachment and trial are regarded as agents of the last resort to constitutionally accuse and remove federal civil officers who commit crimes against the state; or misuse their office in such a way that threatens our system of government and laws. William Jefferson Clinton is the first President to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson was acquitted in his Senate trial by a single vote. In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon decided to resign before the entire House of Representatives could vote on articles of impeachment already approved by the House Judiciary Committee. The recent plight of President Clinton underscores the importance of understanding the basics of impeachment and trial, how the process works, possible grounds of impeachable
The following segments are detailed below:
- The Basics
- How the Impeachment Process Works
- What Qualifies as an Impeachable Offense
- Impeachments and Trials of Presidents
- Alternatives to Conviction and Removal
The Basics (menu)
The framework for impeachment is discussed in the Constitution of the United States. The United States House of Representatives has "the sole Power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2)." Impeachment is an accusation or, more precisely, a set of formal accusations brought against the
Each charge or offense is listed as a separate article of impeachment on which the House votes. A majority of the members of the House who are present must vote "yes" on at least one of the articles of impeachment for a trial to be held in the United States Senate. If none of the articles are approved, the process ends. On the other hand, when one or more articles of impeachment has been approved by the House, the official is "impeached" and will stand trial in the Senate.
The articles of impeachment are then brought before the Senate for trial. When the President of the United States is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides (Article II, Section 3). Civil officers who can be impeached include cabinet officials, federal judges, presidents, vice presidents and Supreme Court justices, but not members of Congress.
The Senators sit as judges, interrogators and jurors. In this sense, their role comes closest to that of Supreme Court or other appellate level judges. Senators can make up the rules that govern the trial proceedings, ask questions through the Chief Justice and pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of the accused. To convict, two-thirds of the Senators present must vote "guilty" on at least one article of impeachment to remove an official from public office. In addition, the Constitution states that an official who has been convicted is then disqualified from holding any other public office (Article I, Section 3). There is no constitutional punishment beyond this. However, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law (Article I, Section 3)." Once someone has been removed from office they can still be tried and convicted in a civil or criminal court, and possibly go to prison. To summarize, the House has the sole power of impeachment while the Senate the sole power to conduct the trial.
How the Impeachment Process Works (menu)
Listed below are eleven important steps in the presidential impeachment and trial process. The Chief Justice only presides at presidential impeachment trials and will serve as our example to illustrate the process. In non-presidential impeachment trials, the Vice President or Senate pro tempore (temporary president of the Senate) presides at the trial. The process includes constitutional requirements and rules which are adopted by both House and Senate regarding the internal process of impeachment and trial. A presidential impeachment trial is the only time when all three branches of government intersect in a constitutionally mandated process.
- Charges are brought against a civil officer of the United States
concerning "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These charges are first referred to the United States House of
Representatives by a government official or brought by members of the
United States House of Representatives. While the charges must originate
in the House, there is no constitutional requirement where the
investigation should begin. For example, in the case of President
Clinton, grounds of possible impeachable offenses were referred to the
House from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the
President’s relationship with former White House intern, Monica
Lewinsky. In the case of President Andrew Johnson, the impeachable
offenses originated with members of the House of Representatives.
- The House then designates the appropriate committee--in the
modern era, the Judiciary Committee--to investigate whether the charges
brought are necessary and sufficient to hold impeachment hearings.
- If the House Judiciary Committee determines that the charges
are serious enough to warrant impeachment hearings, upon conclusion of
the hearings it may vote for articles of impeachment. Each article of
impeachment is voted on by the Judiciary Committee. A majority vote is
necessary on any single article to refer it to the entire House of
- Next, the entire House of Representatives debates the
articles of impeachment. Once the debate concludes, the House of
Representatives votes on each article of impeachment. A majority vote
for impeachment on a single article means that the civil federal
official has been impeached and that the matter is then brought before
the Senate for trial.
- In a solemn tradition, leaders of the House designated by
the Speaker walk the articles of impeachment across the Capitol to the
Senate chamber where they are handed over to the Sergeant at Arms of the
Senate for safekeeping.
- Once the articles have been presented to the Senate, the
House of Representatives appoints managers to prosecute the impeachment
case in the Senate.
- The Senate conducts a trial with the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court presiding (again, in a presidential impeachment trial);
but the body decides all the procedures and rules to be utilized. The
Senate may follow the procedure used in previous cases or it can deviate
from that practice. Any ruling by the Chief Justice can be overturned
by a majority vote of the Senate. In 1986, the United States Senate
formalized its rules for conducting trials in a document entitled,
Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States
Senate. The Senate drafted 26 rules concerning impeachment trial
procedures to bring consistency and fairness to the process.
- The trial begins when the Chief
Justice swears an oath to the Constitution. The Chief Justice then
swears in the Senators who take an oath to do "impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws".
- According to the rules of the
Senate, when the trial is in session, "All persons are commanded to keep
silence, on pain of imprisonment...".
- The trial process usually, but not always, unfolds the
following way with some variation: a) opening statements by the House
managers and Defense counsel; b) witnesses may then be called to testify
and submit to examination and cross-examination by both sides; c)
questions may be posed in writing and read by the Chief Justice from
members of the Senate during the witness phase or any other phase of the
trial according to what a majority of Senators prefers; and, d) closing
statements are made by the House managers and Defense counsel. All
deliberations are conducted in private unless a majority of Senators
vote to change the process.
- The vote, which is taken publicly, requires each Senator to say whether the defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty." A two-thirds "guilty" vote for any article of impeachment, will officially, and immediately remove that officer from the federal government. The Senate has the power to end the trial at any time.
What Qualifies as an Impeachable Offense (menu)
The impeachable offenses of bribery and treason mentioned earlier are easily defined and understood. The interpretation of "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds to impeach and convict a federal civil officer has been disputed by constitutional scholars. One thing the scholars do agree upon is that the adjective "other," in Article II, Section 4, implies that the high crime and misdemeanor must be on a par with a crime of treason or bribery. The crime would have to undermine the legal, institutional or democratic foundations of our system of government. To gain a better understanding what the Constitution says about impeachment, it is first important to become acquainted with the origins of the impeachment process and the Framers’ role in shaping it for our Constitution.
The origins of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes from English Common Law in 1386. The phrase not only referred to common criminal acts but also acts such as "maladministration" (i.e., incompetence) or other serious political offenses such as "misconduct in office." Later as British democracy began to blossom, the House of Commons was given impeachment power and the House of Lords removal power. However, the Crown had to sanction to such actions. Impeachment became a more common practice in the late 17th century as the dominion of royalty began to recede while the Parliament became more powerful in Britain. One of the most famous cases involved the Earl of Clarendon among whose crimes was selling Dunkirk to France in the 1660s without permission from the Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell. This impeachment was symbolic of a larger issue dividing Protestants and Catholics in England.
The Framers’ Role (menu)
The Framers were concerned that impeachment not be used as a political tool as it had in England. In all likelihood, this is the reason they deliberated over impeachment for four months during the Constitutional convention of 1787 before coming to a solution. The initial drafts of what became Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution tried different approaches to define what an impeachable offense was: "mal-practice or neglect of duty," "treason, bribery and corruption" or "treason or bribery" or "maladministration" appeared in early drafts.
The breakthrough occurred when Colonel George Mason of Virginia made a suggestion which would serve as the foundation for Article II, Section 4. The phrase was "high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the state." Mason’s suggestion was further refined by the Constitutional Convention to read: "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 against the United States".
The Committee on Style and Arrangement of the Constitutional Convention, who were in charge of grammar and syntax deleted the phrase against the United States because they considered it to be repetitive. The clause still meant that actions taken by a civil officer must threaten the legal or political system in such a way that irreparable damage would be done if unpunished. For example, if the President murdered someone "besides the injury done to individuals, they (i.e., the crimes) strike at the very being of society. " How does this apply today? The controversy in the Clinton impeachment trial regarded whether or not the alleged acts of perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice, in fact, "strike at the very being of society" undermining our system of laws and justice.
Possible Grounds for Impeachment (menu)
What is an impeachable offense? After all, it seems that the term "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is somewhat vague while treason and bribery are quite obvious. The categories discussed in this section cannot possibly cover every possible instance of an impeachable crime; but they do represent the major types of impeachable offenses. We start with the narrowest grounds of impeachable offenses and end up with the broadest grounds of high crimes and misdemeanors. One could argue that all six categories are impeachable or one could contend that only the first category applies or a combination of several of the categories. The different classifications of possible impeachable offenses, which follow, are explained below. Only treason and bribery are not discussed because those high crimes and misdemeanors are self-explanatory.
- Criminal Violation The passage, "Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" implies that the
President would have to commit a criminal act against the state to be
removed from office. There is no controversy about whether this is an
impeachable offense. Murder, as mentioned earlier, threatens the very
foundation of a civilized society. On the other hand, when the Framers
constructed the impeachment clauses in the Constitution, they drew on
the historical experiences in England where judges were frequently
impeached and removed for having the wrong politics. A policy difference
certainly does not rise to the "criminal" level of treason or bribery.
- Usurpation of Power Exercising power which belongs to
another branch of government would constitute a usurpation (or taking)
of power. Note that usurpation is technically not "criminal" but it does
violate a provision of the Constitution. For instance, the President
cannot suspend the writ of habeus corpus which is the right of someone
to appear before a judge or public tribunal, in times of peace. Only
Congress can suspend such rights as stated in Article I Section 9 of the
Constitution. The President cannot exercise a power reserved to the
Congress. If one branch usurps power from another branch, the separation
of powers among the branches is undermined.
- Good Behavior Article III, Section 1
of the Constitution which addresses the Judicial Branch, states that
all federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
Does this mean that judges are held to a higher standard compared to the
President or members of the cabinet? While not a "high Crime and
Misdemeanor" some argue that because judges are unelected officials and
not responsible to a constituency, the "good Behaviour" clause is a
check on the actions of the only non-elected branch of government.
Opponents have argued that an additional "good Behaviour" standard for
impeaching and removing judges is both unfair and inconsistent with
Article II, Section 4 which makes no distinction according to one’s
position as a civil officer in the government.
- Obstruction of Justice Obstruction of justice means that a
government official seeks to conceal information relevant to a criminal
investigation. There has to be evidence that: 1) the obstruction was
deliberate; 2) that the accused official took specific actions to
prevent relevant information from becoming public in order to avoid
prosecution; and, 3) that such actions violated the public trust. The
result is that the accused federal official took actions which violate
the constitutional obligations to faithfully execute or enforce federal
laws. In the Lewinsky case, the obstruction of justice charge against
the President implied that he violated his obligations to "faithfully
execute" the laws of the nation by trying to impede a federal civil suit
against himself. The obstruction of justice charge can sometimes be
vague, and in courts it requires additional evidence confirming the
obstruction. For example, during Watergate it was Richard Nixon’s own
words on tape that demonstrated that he was actively involved in
obstructing justice into a criminal investigation regarding his
re-election campaign. This type of obstruction is known as a criminal
A criminal conspiracy means that the President or whoever is accused has accomplices or is an accomplice to: 1) lying; 2) covering up relevant information to a criminal inquiry; 3) planning cover-up activities; 4) paying off or bribing others who may have information or who are involved in violating the law; and, 5) conducting activity harmful to other government officials, institutions of government or to corrupt the electoral process.
Watergate illustrates the elements of a large-scale criminal conspiracy. Watergate involved members of the White House staff, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), former members of intelligence agencies and other secret operatives. The purpose was to gain information on President Nixon’s opponents.
On June 17, 1972 the "plumbers," who were former intelligence agency operatives under the direction of CREEP, burglarized the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. Once the burglars were caught and arrested, CREEP and the White House arranged to pay "hush money" to them. The purpose of the break-in was to uncover secrets about the Democrats that would help President Nixon win re-election. When the President got involved in directing and planning the cover-up, which included authorizing payment of "hush money" to the burglars to buy their silence with prosecutors, he broke the law by obstructing justice. Such actions corrupt not only the democratic political process but also the system of laws and justice which governs our country. The House Judiciary Committee voted for three articles of impeachment which included obstruction of justice and the abuse of power (which is discussed in the next section). Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 before the full House could vote to impeach him.
- Political Actions Abusing the Public Trust According to
Alexander Hamilton, one of the Framers of the Constitution, political
actions which abuse the public trust are grounds for impeachment. In The
Federalist Papers #65, Hamilton stated:
"The subjects of its (court of inquiry) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar property be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"(emphasis added).
There is probably no commentary written on impeachment--past or present--more hotly debated than Hamilton’s interpretation of a removable offense. Why? Hamilton introduces a discussion about the political character of impeachable offenses. What did Hamilton mean by "abuse or violation of some public trust?" How do you determine "injuries done immediately to the society itself?"
The abuse or violation of some public trust indicates what is more commonly known as an abuse of power. Abuse of power is an action that may not violate criminal law directly but, does violates one’s oath-of-office. Hamilton clearly conditions such a violation as an injury "to the society itself," meaning the nation as a whole. Abuse of power suggests that someone deliberately misuses the power of their office for personal or political gain which irreparably harms the nation; although it may not directly violate a single provision in the Constitution. The character of abusing power may go far beyond the nature of usurping power from another branch (which was already discussed). For example, a President who recklessly launches a nuclear attack against a nation without any just cause or reason could be impeached, convicted and removed from office under the grounds that Hamilton laid out. In the example discussed above, the President did not handle his power responsibly. The thrust of Hamilton’s argument was to insure that presidents or other high government officials did not act disdainfully of the power vested in them by the Constitution.
- Whatever Congress Decides Impeachment can be any action
which the House of Representatives determines to be removable from
office. According to this interpretation, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
is so vague that it can mean almost anything. While serving as a
Congressman, Gerald Ford (who later became President) once defined
"whatever a majority of the House (considers it) to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office".
Ford’s broad definition of impeachment as a political tool could be used to remove undesirable executive officials from office for policy or other unspecified reasons. Such motivations were attributed to the House of Representatives when they attempted to remove Andrew Johnson from the Presidency in 1868. Most constitutional scholars reject the Ford interpretation because removing a President from office may become more commonplace as it is with a prime minister in a parliamentary system of government.
Impeachments and Trials of Presidents (menu)
Andrew Johnson (menu)
After Lincoln’s untimely assassination in April of 1865, as the Civil War was ending, Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency from his position as Vice President. Johnson was an anti-secessionist Democrat who ran with Lincoln on a bi-partisan ticket and was elected with him in 1864 as Vice President. Since Johnson was a Democrat and the Congress was controlled by Republicans, it was not surprising that there would be clashes over Reconstruction policies when he assumed the presidency.
While acknowledging the reality of the liberation of Blacks from slavery, Johnson did not support the call for civil or voting rights protections under law. Furthermore, he did not believe that the South should be harshly punished for its actions in the Civil War. These policies enraged many Republicans who overrode President Johnson’s vetoes on civil rights legislation. In another move, a group of a fiercely abolitionist Congressmen and Senators, known as the "Radical" Republicans, restricted the president’s power to fire cabinet officials by passing The Tenure of Office Act of 1867 over the veto of President Johnson.
The Tenure of Office Act stated that the President could not remove cabinet officers from the United States government unless the Senate consented. He did have the right to suspend cabinet or other appointed officials from their duties when the Senate was not in session. That suspension, however, would end once the Senate was back in session unless they passed a resolution agreeing with the President’s actions.
The impeachment controversy began when Andrew Johnson fired his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton with whom he had been feuding with for nearly a year. Stanton was popular among Republicans and had served ably in his position during the Civil War under Lincoln. However, behind the scenes he had been disrupting the Reconstruction policies of President Johnson. When Johnson sought to remove Stanton, it violated the Tenure of Office Act. Rather than test the constitutionality of the law before the Supreme Court, the House acted immediately by approving eleven articles of impeachment against President Johnson. All but two were related to the removal of Stanton. One of the articles regarded speeches "that had been inflammatory and reflected badly on Congress." The last Article of Impeachment was a series of unconnected charges.
Under the Constitution, the President is given the power of appointment of "other public ministers" under Article II Section 2 with the advice and consent of the Senate. In addition, the President takes an oath to see that "laws be faithfully executed" under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has written about how President Johnson’s counsel skillfully argued for acquittal. The counsel stated that for a President to faithfully execute the laws, he "must be able to appoint subordinate officers whom he can place his trust, and be able to remove them when they cease to have his trust." Furthermore, the President’s counsel argued that the record of the First Congress confirmed this interpretation.
Although, Republicans held a 42-12 seat advantage over Democrats in the Senate, three articles of impeachment were voted down. President Johnson survived by only one vote, on each of the three articles. Two-thirds of the Senate were unable to find the President guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. The other eight articles of impeachment were never voted on by the Senate. Interestingly enough, none of the articles which were voted on related directly to the Tenure of Office Act of 1867; but it appears that the President’s counsel had convinced enough Republicans with his presentation not to remove Johnson from office.
William Jefferson Clinton (menu)
William Jefferson Clinton is only the second American president to have been impeached and tried in the nation’s history. Unlike the public duel between Andrew Johnson and congressional Republicans, the Clinton impeachment process grew out of a private relationship that, for better or worse, had public consequences.
Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, was given the opportunity to enlarge his investigation, by the Attorney General, into the President when he believed there was evidence that Mr. Clinton and his friend, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan, may have helped former intern Monica Lewinsky get a job in order to secure her testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. Ms. Lewinsky denied that she had a sexual relationship with the President in her deposition before the Jones attorneys. About a week later, on January 26, 1998, President Clinton made his first public statement on the Lewinsky matter, stating, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Clinton had already given a deposition before the Jones attorneys and testified to the same thing.
During the spring of 1998, Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr called numerous witnesses before a grand jury investigating charges of perjury (lying under oath about a sexual relationship), obstruction of justice and other wrongdoing with President Clinton as the main target. During the summer of 1998, Mr. Starr secured the cooperation of Monica Lewinsky. Before a federal grand jury, Ms. Lewinsky recanted her earlier story in the Jones deposition and now testified to having had a sexual relationship with President Clinton.
On August 17, 1998, the President in a federal grand jury appearance stated that he engaged in "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms. Lewinsky. It is this phrase, more than any other that has served as the basis of the prosecution and defense in the Clinton impeachment trial.
The Independent Counsel and congressional Republicans contended that Clinton’s answer demonstrated that he was failing to tell the truth about a sexual relationship to a Federal grand jury by being evasive and uncooperative. They argued that he refused to provide details of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office which would corroborate Lewinsky’s story. The White House and some congressional Democrats argued that anyone could read between the lines regarding what the President meant and that he was not more specific to avoid further embarrassment to himself and his family.
Hearings were held before the House Judiciary Committee where articles of impeachment were drafted against the President. The four articles of impeachment were: 1) perjury before the grand jury; 2) perjury in the Paula Jones case; 3) obstruction of justice into the Independent Counsel’s investigation; and, 4) abuse of power. These articles of impeachment were then put to the House of Representatives for a full vote. The article of perjury before a federal grand jury passed by a vote of 228-206 and obstruction of justice into the Independent Counsel’s investigation passed by 221-212. The other two articles failed to pass the House. The articles adopted by the entire House were then placed before the Senate for trial.
The House managers arguing the case in the Senate trial contended that the President is the chief law enforcement official in the country. If the President lies before a federal grand jury about a sexual relationship, it is perjury, a crime which has put ordinary citizens and government officials in jail. Why should the President be held to a lower standard than any other citizen?
Second, the House managers argued that the President "prevented Paula Jones from obtaining truthful testimony and evidence that might have helped her lawsuit" against him by getting Monica Lewinsky to testify falsely. Such an attempt to cover-up the President’s actions represents an obstruction of justice because he was trying to impede Ms. Jones right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the House managers argued that a woman’s ability to win a sexual harassment suit would be weakened if the chief law enforcement official of the nation, who willfully violates the law, is given a free pass by the Senate. Therefore, the House managers stated that the President should be removed from office.
The President’s counsel argued that the Mr. Clinton’s actions were neither perjurious nor did they obstruct justice. The President counsel’s case was based on the following grounds: (1) Monica Lewinsky testified that the President never asked her to lie before a grand jury; (2) the case was nothing more than a "he said/she said" dispute with no other direct evidence showing that high crimes were committed; (3) there was no direct evidence that the President told White House officials or anyone else to cover-up his activities to obstruct justice; (4) that lying about a separate sexual relationship under oath which was not directly related to the facts of a sexual harassment suit (the Paula Jones case) could not be perjurious under the United States Federal Code of Laws; and, 5) even if they were crimes, they would not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The main premise of the last part of the President counsel’s argument was that even if the President lied about a sexual relationship under oath, that lie neither imperiled the country nor its institutions of government and democracy.
Alternatives to Conviction and Removal (menu)
The possibility that the Senate considered other options to conviction or acquittal of President Clinton was certainly not envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. Whether these alternatives are constitutional is another matter. The censure option means that the Senate condemns the actions of President Clinton without any penalty. Censure was used in the past to condemn actions of Presidents Jackson and Buchanan, for example. Since censure is non-binding and not punitive, it probably is constitutional.
The finding-of-fact option calls for two votes: 1) a resolution stating that the President committed the crimes he was charged with by the House; and, 2) a vote on conviction or acquittal. However, the finding-of-fact alternative has caused concern among some legal experts. As University of Virginia Law Professor John C. Jeffries, Jr. stated: "The sanction for conviction is removal from office....That’s the constitutional command." There is no constitutional precedence for this option in any impeachment trial in the past. Some are concerned that such as action would carve out new legal territory unsupported by the Constitution. On the other hand, a finding-of-fact gives the Senate a stronger alternative to censure arguing that the President did commit a crime, but that crime did not warrant his removal from office.
For political scientists and other interested political observers, there is no way to assess the long-term impact of the Clinton impeachment trial on the American political system at such an early date. We do know that a series of weaker Presidents followed both Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. Will the presidency be weakened again after the Clinton era? We do not know how our political system will be affected in the short-term. All we can know is that in the long-term, our system of checks and balances among the branches of government is not likely to be destroyed by a single impeachment struggle, and will remain resilient as the Framers designed it to be.
- In 1797, Senator William Blount of Tennessee was impeached but not convicted in the Senate because he was not a "civil officer" (i.e., a presidential appointee). www.rnet.net/WARDBOOK/impeach.htm. (back)
- Floyd M. Riddick and Robert B. Dove, "Rule XXV" Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate. Senate Document 99-33, pursuant to SR 439, August 15, 1986. (back)
- IBID, "Rule II." (back)
- Charles L. Black, Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1974, p. 49; Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1974, Chapter I, see pp. 40-43, in particular. (back)
- Committee on Federal Legislation. The Law of Presidential Impeachment. New York: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York 1973, p. 5. (back)
- IBID. (back)
- William Blackstone, Commentaries. ID. at 5, quoted in Charles Doyle, Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials. CRS. Report 98-882A. October 29, 1998, p.3. (back)
- Berger, op.cit., Chapter II. (back)
- See Alexander Hamilton, "Federalist #79, in Clinton Rossitor, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor Books 1961; Berger, op.cit., Chapter IV. (back)
- Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The Final Days. New York: Avon Books 1976. (back)
- IBID, p. 396. (back)
- See Raoul Berger, op.cit., Chapter II for a complete discussion of the abuse of power. (back)
- Gerald R. Ford, Statement on Impeaching Justice William O. Douglas. Congressional Record, April 15, 1970, p.116. (back)
- William H. Rehnquist. Grand Inquests. New York: Quill Books 1992, p. 210. (back)
- IBID. (back)
- Committee on Federal Legislation, op.cit., p.7; Rehnquist, op.cit., pp. 226-227. (back)
- IBID, p.230. (back)
- IBID, pp. 231-235. (back)
- Special Investigation. "Clinton Accused: How did we get here?" www.washingtonpost.com. See "The Story Breaks" and "The Denial." (back)
- Phil Kuntz, editor. The Starr Evidence. New York: Pocket Books 1998, p. 361. (back)
- Statement by House manager Ed Bryant. "Managers Argument for Witnesses." United States Senate Trial Transcript of William Jefferson Clinton. January 26,1999. (back)
- The particular perjury citation is in the Federal Code at 18 USC 1621. (back)
- Andrew Jackson’s censure was later revoked by the Congress. (back)
- Quoted in Eric Pianin and Joan Biscupic, "Senators Exploring a Form of Censure Are Bumping Into Obstacles." The Washington Post. January 28, 1999, p.A17. (back)