Debate Essay on Impeachment (Essay Sample)

Debate Essay on Impeachment Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction According to Section 3 clause 6 of constitution of the United States of America, the sole power to try the impeachment is held by the US Senate provided that the members shall be on Oath or Affirmation. Additionally, when the President of United States is to be tried, it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to preside the trial. The conviction is subjected to the concurrence of two-third of the Members (Constitution of USA). To analyze the clause of impeachment it is mandatory to find out the offences that are to be termed as “impeachable offence”. The judicial committee, before voting on authorizing the impeachment inquiry, shall first determine what constitutes an “impeachable offence” (Memorandum Regarding Standards for Impeachment, 1998). The US Constitution in Article II, section 4 states that the office bearers—The president, Vice President and all civil officers—shall be removed from holding the office on Impeachment for, conviction of the acts—Treason, Bribery, high crimes and Misdemeanors (Constitution of USA). The power vested in senate is the removal from office. Likewise, it bars holding a future office. Standard of Impeachment The impeachable offences, as described by the constitution framers, were conviction of malpractice or negligence in duty (Farrand, 1911 (pp.88)) which were reported as “Treason, Bribery and Corruption” by The Committee of Detail (Farrand, 1911 (pp.172,186)) rephrased as “Treason or Bribery” by Committee of Eleven (Farrand, 1911 (pp.499). Latter, the terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” was added upon Mason’s Proposal (Farrand, 1911 (pp.550)). The term “Treason” is defined clearly by constitution (Article 3, Section 3) while the remaining three are not subjecting them to legal debate. According to the report entitled Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are vague. It states that the framers of the constitution were clear in their mind about impeachable “abuse of power” which meant to them the exercise of presidential powers beyond constitutional authority and violating legal limits. Likewise, as the report states, the abuse of power meant to them as exercising powers for obtaining improper benefits on cost of national interests. The meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which an official be removed are not defined by constitution or statutes. Hence, the house has to judge and present articles regarding conviction. For the very nature of wrongs, having impeachment being the sole remedy, it is essential that the wrongs should be undefined to ensure security of the state. However, it does not mean that there are no rules for guidance of the conduct. The undefined or ambiguous terms of the constitution had a defined meaning during framing the constitution (as discussed earlier). The terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” are broad enough that they cover all criminal offences and properties of official conduct. Likewise, misdemeanors were used to designate legal all legal offences. US VS Walter Nixon Now the question arises on the discretion of senate regarding impeachment and declaring impeachable offence. Apart from declaring war, one of the solemn duties of the congress is impeachment of office bearers. It was questioned by Walter Nixon, a chief judge in a District court. When Nixon was charged with three impeachment articles of “high crimes and misdemeanors” –giving false testimony and causing disrespect to the judiciary. The house, under Rule XI, appointed a committee of senators for receiving and making testimony and presenting it before the Senate. The Senate voted more than two-third majority, constitutional requirement, to convict Nixon. When he was found guilty by the senate he challenged the decision on grounds that he had to present evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee and not before the whole house. The Supreme Court Decided against him unanimously argued that Nixon presented “non-justifiable political question” as the constitutional text of “sole power” of trying impeachment gives the power and precluded judicial reviews. Nixon asked the court about the senate rule XI, allowing a committee to hear evidences against an individual and then report it to Senate, should be decided as it violates the impeachment clause. He asked that the word “try” imposes a limitation on Senate as it hinders the senate from delegating powers to a Committee; as the word “try means” hearing the evidences rather than just reviewing a record. Therefore, the court should review whether the Senate had a pre-conviction trail of Nixon. The court rejected the plea. The ruling and has showed that the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution which authorizes the initiation of the inquiry. Hence it appears that the political offences of the constitution for which the civil officers are removable embrace as wider as circle of official duties and powers. It may also be said that, when the house feels for a president, just cause of impeachment is when he has done something that he ought not to have done or to have left things undone which he have to be done, followed by a majority vote to make it grounds for charges. Richard Nixon and Donald Trump: Impeachment Juxtaposed A debate on the initiation of impeachment trial of President D. Trump is that whether the process started with the authorization of investigation by Speaker Nancy Pelosi or it started when the House members in lower house presented Impeachment Articles to Judicial Committee of the House. The main differences between the impeachment procedures of President Trump and President Nixon are discussed because these differences are creating complications in the impeachment process. Firstly, the proceedings of Impeachment against Trump initiated in Lower House—House of Representatives—and will end in Upper House—Senate. However, the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon initiated in Senate—having Democrats majority. The indication, probably the best, about how the impeachment ends is defined by the initiation. The impeachment procedures of 2019 are not the same as that of 1974. Because starting in the house and given balance of Republicans to democrats in the senate gave Trump a pass. Secondly, the hearing of Nixon impeachment was broadcasted and televised by the media of the time. However, this time the continuous coverage was not allowed. Thirdly, the articles of impeachment against President Trump differ from Impeachment articles of Nixon. No article against Mr. Trump focused on obstruction of Justice. The obstruction of justice article, against Nixon, passed the Committee. It may be said that impeachment does not require a criminal act, and obstruction of justice (in criminal case) would entail influencing and obstructing procedure before an agency or department. However, the article of obstruction of justice may have opened doors for Trump and his allies for debate. Likewise, another difference in the article of impeachment is that Democrats have started numerically very small. In Nixon’s case, five articles were presented among which the committee approved three. The wider number of articles provided both sides a huge option of selecting and picking which ultimately enables them to break ranks with party’s dominant position. Likewise, party polarization may be seen as a difference in both the cases of impeachment. In Nixon’s impeachment process, the committee on judiciary founded several members break with their party’s vote. In present, the party polarization is strong and Senate is dominated by Trump loyalists. Talking about the similarity of Trump and Nixon impeachment, the articles of impeachment can be studied and conclusions can be drawn. The article—abuse of power—against Trump is similar to the three approved articles of Watergate. Additionally, the language of the articles against Mr. Trump depicts the same as that of Mr. Nixon. The articles—disobeying oath—are much the same as Nixon. To sum up, it may be said that the articles against Mr. Trump are though different in nature and text, they still possess the historical echoes. Interestingly, the articles differ from previous impeachment in many ways, too. Is it possible to hold a president accountable for abuse of power when his powers are somewhat discretionary in how they are used? The Montesquieu theory of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in United States make the power of President Paradoxical. The founding fathers of the nation had bestowed and immense authority to the executive branch but also counted that people will have a check on its power. It is a notion of wisdom that power enables but in a democratic country the power constrains, too. Alexander Hamilton contended that the executive powers shall be bestowed in one man rather than a group of men because it will help in decision-making and secrecy coupled with the execution of the decisions (Federalist No. 70, 1788). The article II and Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the executive powers shall be vested in a president. The two centuries of history had showed that it is necessary to define the parameters for presidency and imparting vigilance on the presidential powers. The well accepted co-relation between accountability and powers had not only affected the drafting of Constitution but also influenced the interpretations by the Constitution makers. James Madison stated that the president could be impeached when he failed to utilize his powers of oversight check on the office bearers. Recent political and legal moves tend the focus of the commentators to access whether some actions of the president fall within the sphere of executive powers. Hence, power is a considered as a territorial claim that ...