I’ve been multi-tasking this past week.
I agreed to co-host a discussion on Impeachment with my friend, former Syracuse Mayor, Stephanie Miner at Colgate University where she is the Rakin Fellow to be held on Friday, February 7. So, I’ve been familiarizing myself with the topics and sources she identified and gathering other readings on the subject. I’ve been reading and taking notes while at the same time, watching the impeachment trial on television.
Comparing the readings and sources with the commentary being offered by participants in the trial and some of those commenting on it, their lack of knowledge about impeachment has stunned me.
One of the best references on this subject is the book Impeachment by John Meacham, Timothy Naftali, Peter Baker and Jeffrey Engel.
Engel’s explanation of the evolution of the impeachment clause and its inclusion in the Constitution was particularly illuminating.
I was surprised to learn that whether to include impeachment in the Constitution at all was a controversial issue for the Framers during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
The Framers were familiar with the mechanism of impeachment and removal from office because it had existed in the British system as early as the fourteenth century. While the King, who was ordained by Divine right, couldn’t be impeached, judges and other ministers could and were impeached and removed from office.
As the framers debated the duties and powers of the office of the President, which they called the “First Magistrate,” conflicting opinions were offered about the need for impeachment. Benjamin Franklin observed about George Washington that, “The first man at the helm will be a good one, nobody knows what sort may come afterwards.” George Mason of Virginia declared “Some mode of displacing an unfit magistrate is rendered indispensable by the fallibility of those who choose as well as by the corruptibility of the man chosen.”
When an impeachment clause was adopted on June 2, 1787, George Mason offered an observation that is often cited today. “No point is more important than the right of impeachment shall be continued. Shall any man be above the law?”
Governeur Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania, approved of impeachment but resisted vesting the impeachment power in the Legislature believing that it would empower the Legislature, while at the same time, weaken the President, noting that “It will hold him in such dependence that he will be no check on the legislature and will not be a firm guardian of the people and the public trust.” Morris believed that a good president would be returned to office and a bad one voted out. He believed that a shorter term of office and frequent referenda was preferable to making the executive beholden to the legislature.
Delegate, William Davis, of North Carolina, in an observation that should have particular resonance today, declared “If non-impeachable, a thoroughly immunized president would spare no effort or means whatever to get himself re-elected.”
George Mason offered a similar caution opining that, “The man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance might otherwise be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt.” It is not lost on me that Trump made his “perfect call” to the President of Ukraine seeking an investigation of the Bidens, on the day following Robert Mueller’s testimony about the conclusions in his report concerning Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Benjamin Franklin finally brought those delegates who were wavering on the inclusion of an impeachment clause to the conclusion that it was essential by posing and answering a question. As he framed it, “What was the practice before this in the cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination.”
The Framers had to next decide what would be a sufficient basis for impeaching a president.
I’ll share some thoughts on that in the next blog post.