Article 2, Section 4 — Historical Background On Impeachable Offenses

| next

Article II, Section 4:

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.

The concept of impeachment and the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” originally stems from English Parliamentary practice.; Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 54 (1973); H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93d Cong. 4 (Comm. Print 1974) [hereinafter Constitutional Grounds]. ") The House of Commons impeached and tried before the House of Lords both private citizens and government officers, but not the Crown itself, for offenses considered beyond the reach of the common-law criminal courts.. ") The tool was used by Parliament to corral the power of the Crown and police political offenses committed by ministers and favorites of the King. Impeachment applied to conduct that damaged the state or subverted the government.). ") The standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears intended to address conduct involving an individual’s abuse of power or office. Punishment for a conviction could include a range of penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or even death.

The American colonies adopted their own impeachment procedures that informed the Framers’ understanding of impeachment. These traditions extended into state constitutions established during the early years of the Republic. During the years of 1776–1787, states adopted into their constitutions’ impeachment provisions that limited impeachment to government officials and restricted the punishment for impeachment to removal from office with the possibility of future disqualification from office. At the state level, the body charged with trying an impeachment varied.; see, e.g., N.Y. Const. of 1777 arts. XXXII–XXXIII (providing that impeachments be tried before a court composed of Senators, judges of the Supreme Court, and the chancellor). ")

The standards for impeachments adopted at the Constitutional Convention were thus inspired by both English and colonial practice, but ultimately differed in structure from both these traditions. In particular, the Framers aimed to narrow the scope of impeachable offenses and persons subject to impeachment as compared to English practice.. ") For example, while according to English practice at the time of the Constitution’s enactment, impeachment extended to anyone except a member of the royal family, the federal Constitution limited impeachment to federal government officers (including the President and Vice President).. ") In addition, whereas the English Parliament never formally defined the parameters of what counted as impeachable conduct, the Framers restricted impeachment to treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. In English practice, the Crown could pardon individuals following an impeachment conviction. In contrast, the Framers restricted the pardon power from being applied to impeachments, rendering the impeachment process essentially unchecked by the Executive Branch.. ")

The Framers also rejected a proposal made during the Constitutional Convention to include—in addition to treason and bribery. ") — “maladministration” as an impeachable offense, which would have presumably incorporated a broad range of common-law offenses. [hereinafter Farrand’s Records; see Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Impeachment and Its Alternatives, 68 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 14–15 (1989). ")
Although “maladministration” was a ground for impeachment in many state constitutions at the time of the Constitution’s drafting,. ")
the Framers instead adopted the term “high Crimes and misdemeanors” from English practice. James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention, objected to the inclusion of “maladministration” as grounds for impeachment because such a vague impeachment standard would “be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.”
Immediately thereafter, the Convention voted to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead.
Arguably, the Framers’ rejection of such a broad term supports the view that congressional disagreement with a President’s policy goals is not sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Of particular importance to the understanding of the practice in America were the roughly contemporaneous British impeachment proceedings of Warren Hastings, the governor general of India, which were transpiring at the time of the Constitution’s formulation and ratification.
Hastings was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, which included corruption and abuse of power.
At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason positively referenced the impeachment of Hastings. At that point in the Convention, a proposal to define impeachment as appropriate for treason and bribery was under consideration. …