Article 2, Section 4 — Jurisprudence On Impeachable Offenses 1789 1860

prev | 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.

Congressional understanding of the scope of activities subject to impeachment and the potential persons who may be impeached was first put to the test during the Adams Administration. In 1797, letters sent to President John Adams revealed a conspiracy by Senator William Blount—in violation of the United States government’s policy of neutrality on the matter and the Neutrality Act[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn1art2 " 1 Stat. 381, 384 § 5 (June 5, 1794). ") —to organize a military expedition with the British to invade land in the American Southwest under Spanish control.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn2art2 " See Buckner F. Melton, The First Impeachment 60–103 (1998); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis 48 (2000); David Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789–1801 275–81 (1997). ") The House voted to impeach Senator Blount on July 7, 1797,[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn3art2 " Emily F.V. Tassel & Paul Finkelman, Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present 87–88 (1999). ") while the Senate voted to expel Senator William Blount the next day.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn4art2 " Gerhardt, supra note 2, at 48; see U.S. Const. art. I, § 5. ") Before impeaching Senator Blount, several House Members questioned whether Senators were “civil officers” subject to impeachment.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn5art2 " Currie, supra note 2, at 276. ") But Samuel W. Dana of Connecticut argued that Members of Congress must be civil officers, because other provisions of the Constitution that mention offices appear to include holding legislative office.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn6art2 " Id. (noting Article I, Section 9 and Article I, Section 3). ") Despite already having voted to impeach Senator Blount, it was not until early in the next year that the House actually adopted specific articles of impeachment against Senator Blount.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn7art2 " Tassel & Finkelman, supra note 3, at 87–88; Melton, supra note 2, at 104–89. ")

At the Senate impeachment trial in 1799, Blount’s attorneys argued that impeachment was improper because Blount had already been expelled from his Senate seat and had not been charged with a crime.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn8art2 " Currie, supra note 2, at 277. ") However, the primary issue of debate was whether Members of Congress qualified as civil officers subject to impeachment. The House prosecutors argued that under the American system, as in England, virtually anyone was subject to impeachment.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn9art2 " Id. at 279. ") The defense responded that this broad interpretation of the impeachment power would enable Congress to impeach state officials as well as federal, upending the proper division of federal and state authorities in the young Republic.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn10art2 " Id. ") The Senate voted to defeat a resolution that declared Blount was a “civil officer” and therefore subject to impeachment.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn11art2 " 8 Annals of Cong. 2317 (1799). ") The Senate ultimately voted to dismiss the impeachment articles brought against Blount because it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, although the impeachment record does not indicate precisely the basis for this conclusion.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn12art2 " Peter Hoffer & N.E.H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635–1805 155 (1984). 9 Annals of Cong. 2648–49 (1799). Currie, supra note 2, at 2780–81. While the Senate’s vote to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction might also be based on the fact that the Senator had been expelled from Congress, and therefore did not occupy an “office,” it is generally accepted that the Senate’s decision stands for the proposition that impeachment does not extend to Members of Congress. See Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Wickham, Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House 604–06 (2017); Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Impeachment, Selected Materials, 93d Cong. 692 (Comm. Print 1973); Motions Sys. Corp. v. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ( “This principle has been accepted since 1799, when the Senate, presented with articles of impeachment against Senator William Blount, concluded after four days of debate that a Senator was not a civil officer for purposes of the Impeachment Clause.” ). ") Regardless, the House has not impeached a Member of Congress since.

The first federal official to be impeached and removed from office was John Pickering, a federal district judge. The election of President Thomas Jefferson in 1800, along with Jeffersonian Republican majorities in both House of Congress, signaled a shift from Federalist party control of government.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn13art2 " Hoffer & Hull, supra note 12, at 181. ") Much of the federal judiciary at this early stage of the Republic were members of the Federalist party, and the new Jeffersonian Republican majority strongly opposed the Federalist-controlled courts.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn14art2 " Id. at 181. ") John Pickering was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1803[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn15art2 " See 12 Annals of Cong. 642 (1803); 13 Annals of Cong. 380 (1803). ") and convicted by the Senate on March 12, 1804.[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn16art2 " See 13 Annals of Cong. 368 (1804); Hoffer & Hull, supra note 12, at 208, 216–17. ") The circumstances of Judge Pickering’s impeachment are somewhat unique as it appears that the judge had been mentally ill for some time, although the articles of impeachment did not address Pickering’s mental faculties but instead accused him of drunkenness, blasphemy on the bench, and refusing to follow legal precedent.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn17art2 " Eleanore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials 45–46 (1992). ") Judge Pickering did not appear at his trial, and Senator John Quincy Adams apparently served as a defense counsel.[18](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn18art2 " Hoffer & Hull, supra note 12, at 211–13. ") Following debate in a closed session, the Senate voted to permit evidence of Judge Pickering’s insanity, drunkenness, and behavior on the bench.[19](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn19art2 " Bushnell, supra note 17, at 48–51. Scholars have noted that the Senate vote in favor of admitting evidence of insanity likely stemmed from two opposing reasons. The minority party Federalists—of which Judge Pickering was a member—considered evidence of insanity a reason to acquit the judge because it was not an impeachable offense. The majority party Republicans, in contrast, considered insanity a reason to remove him from the bench. Id. at 48–49. ") The Senate also rejected a resolution to disqualify three Senators, who were previously in the House and had voted to impeach Judge Pickering, from participating in the impeachment trial.[20](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn20art2 " Id. at 47. ") The Senate voted to convict Judge Pickering guilty as charged, but the articles did not explicitly specify that any of Pickering’s behavior constituted a high crime or misdemeanor.[21](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn21art2 " 13 Annals of Cong. 367 (1804); Bushnell, supra note 17, at 53–54. ") Objections to the framing of the question at issue caused several Senators to withdraw from the trial.[22](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn22art2 " Bushnell, supra note 17, at 53–54. ")

On the same day the Senate convicted Judge Pickering, the House of Representatives impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.[23](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn23art2 " 13 Annals of Cong. 1180 (1804); Bushnell, supra note 17, at 60. ") Like the impeachment trial of Judge Pickering, the proceedings occurred following the election of President Thomas Jefferson and amidst intense conflict between the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans.[24](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn24art2 " Hoffer & Hull, supra note 12, at 228–138. ") Justice Chase was viewed by Jeffersonian Republicans as openly partisan, and in fact the Justice did openly campaign for the election of Federalist John Adams in the election of 1800.[25](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn25art2 " Bushnell, supra note 17, at 63. ") In addition, Republicans took issue with Justice Chase’s aggressive approach to jury instructions in Sedition Act prosecutions.[26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn26art2 " Josh Chafetz, Congress’s Constitution 108 (2017). ") The eight articles of impeachment accused him of acting in an “arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust” manner at trial, misapplying the law, and expressing partisan political views to a grand jury.[27](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1789-1860#fn27art2 " Impeachment, Selected Materia