James Madison on impeachment
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in History, Law, NewsI came across this interesting bit of history while trolling through the Washington Post’s Clinton impeachment archives looking for Libby parallels.
It’s a discussion of how the framers dealt with the impeachment and pardon powers during the Constitutional Convention. Here’s how James Madison addressed one concern:
George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded: “[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….”
Hmmm….
It’s a matter of opinion whether the Libby commutation is so wrongful that it deserves impeachment; after all, we probably wouldn’t impeach the president for commuting a speeding ticket even if it was transparently immoral. And I believe impeachment efforts should have a high bar to get over. On a practical level, Bush is so close to the end of his term that impeachment proceedings are probably pointless anyway.
But it’s worth noting that the Framers didn’t think the impeachment bar was as high as we do today. They seemed to think it could be resorted to freely and that the necessity of supermajorities to convict was a sufficiently large hurdle to prevent abuse.
Madison, for example, appears to argue that pardoning an administration official is so injurious to the Constitution and the rule of law that it’s an impeachable offense. Indeed, Madison argues that a president could be impeached if Congress merely suspects the President would shelter a criminal to which he is connected. That’s not a very high bar at all.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 5th, 2007 and is filed under History, Law, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I wish we had a congress with enough guts to do it.
July 6th, 2007 at 2:36 am
[...] Censure might be the most realistic action but is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the actions committed by George Bush. Donklephant examined “how the framers dealt with the impeachment and pardon powers during the Constitutional Convention” and noted this quote from James Madison: George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himselfâ€Â? or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.â€Â? James Madison responded: “[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….â€Â? [...]
July 6th, 2007 at 3:00 am
If There Is Anything “Funner” Than Hookers And Cocaine, It’s A Censure Of President Bush
Not sure I’m on the guy’s bandwagon here — a President does have the right to spare his fellow crooks the noose after all — but I found this little “tidbit” to be rather interesting…
Congressman Wexler to File …
July 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I’ve become increasingly convinced in recent months that we should have some sort of aggressive accountability for the Bush years - impeachment proceedings, investigations, or a war crimes trial. While any of these (especially the last) would be a propaganda field day for our opponents - who will conveniently ignore how they have done much worse - our greatest strength is the ability to self-correct, change, and take responsibility for failures and abuses while punishing those responsible. If we throw that away in favor of political ‘reality’, we’re stripping away one of the most substantial moral and practical advantages of a democratic system.