Impeachment 101: Constitutional Provisions and British Influence
The Constitution
Article I, section 2, clause 5: (Impeachment)
"The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article I, section 3, clause 6: (Trial of Impeachment)
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Article I, section 3, clause 7: (Punishment for Impeachment)
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Article II, section 2, clause 1: (Pardon Power)
“The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Article II, section 4: (Standards for Impeachment)
“The President, Vice President and all 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 III, section 2, clause 3: (Criminal Trials)
“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”
Historical Precedent
The delegates to the Federal Convention meeting in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation debated how best to structure the impeachment power. British precedent and practice informed their deliberations. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton observed of impeachment,
“The model, from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain, it is the province of the house of commons to prefer the impeachment; and of the house of lords to decide upon it. Several of the state constitutions have followed the example.”
Members of Congress affirmed the British influence in 1797 during the Senate’s first impeachment trial after the House voted to impeach Senator William Blount, R-NC. In presenting the House’s case against Blount, manager James A. Bayard, Federalist-Del., asserted that the delegates to the Federal Convention,
“considered the object of their legislation [the Constitution’s impeachment provisions] as a known thing, having a previous definite existence. This existing, their work was solely to mould [sic] it into a suitable shape. They have given it to us, not as a thing of their creation, but merely of their modification.”
Thomas Jefferson also acknowledges the Constitution’s reliance on British precedent and practice in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which he compiled during his tenure as Vice President and President of the Senate (1797-1801). Specifically, Jefferson wanted to provide additional procedural guidance to senators in situations for which the Senate's twenty-four rules did not provide explicit direction. In the absence of such advice, Jefferson feared that the Senate's deliberations would fluctuate between chaos and oppressive majority rule. He discerned "general parliamentary law" by consulting the Constitution, the Senate's rules, "and where these are silent…the rules of Parliament."
Jefferson noted the similarity between the British and American impeachment procedures. He observed, “the lords cannot impeach any to themselves, nor join in the accusation, because they are the judges.” In other words, only the House of Commons could vote to impeach a government official while only the House of Lords could decide whether or not to convict that official in a trial. To that end, Jefferson noted that in Great Britain, “the general course is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the Commons.”
Notwithstanding such similarities, essential differences remained between British and American impeachment procedures.
For example, British practice was much broader in scope. In Great Britain at the time, anyone could be impeached. The Commons were not limited to government officials. In contrast, the Constitution limits the House's power to impeach to the President, Vice President, and all civil officers (including federal judges). (Note: Members of Congress and military officers are not eligible to be impeached.)
The penalties associated with impeachment were also much more severe in Great Britain than they were in America. They included fine, imprisonment, and execution. In contrast, the Constitution limited the penalties for a conviction to removal from office and disqualification for office in the future. However, the Constitution specified that a convicted official remains liable to criminal proceedings after he or she has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Conclusion
The Constitution modified an established impeachment procedure to make it suitable for use in the United States. That is, it altered the open-ended impeachment procedure used in Great Britain at the time to make it more limited, and therefore, more acceptable in America. Beyond the specific limits specified in the Constitution, however, the impeachment procedure is quite powerful. It specifies that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power to determine when and why it should be used. And it specifies that the Senate shall have the only authority to decide if government officials who have been impeached by the House should be convicted and disqualified from holding future office.