Article 2, Section 4 — Jurisprudence On Impeachable Offenses 1865 1900

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.

The post-bellum experience in American history saw a variety of government officials impeached on a number of different grounds. These examples provide important principles that guide the practice of impeachment through the present day. For example, the Senate has not always conducted a trial following an impeachment by the House. In 1873, the House impeached federal district judge Mark. H. Delahay for, among other things, drunkenness on and off the bench.[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn1art2 " 3 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States §§ 2504–05 (1907) [hereinafter Hinds]; Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Wickham, Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House 608–13 (2017). ") The impeachment followed an investigation by a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee into his conduct.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn2art2 " 3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2504–05. ") Following the House vote on impeachment, Judge Delahay resigned before written impeachment articles were drawn up and the Senate did not hold a trial.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn3art2 " Emily F.V. Tassel & Paul Finkelman, Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present 119 (1999). ") The impeachment of Judge Delahay indicates that the scope of impeachable behavior is not limited to strictly criminal behavior; Congress has been willing to impeach individuals for behavior that is not indictable, but nonetheless constitutes an abuse of an individual’s power and duties.

This period of American history was fraught with partisan conflict over Reconstruction.[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn4art2 " See generally Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988). ") In addition to President Johnson, a number of other individuals were investigated by Congress during this time for purposes of impeachment. For example, in 1873, the House voted to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the behavior of Edward H. Durrell, federal district judge for Louisiana.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn5art2 " 3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2506–08. ") A majority of the House Judiciary Committee reported in favor of impeaching Judge Durell for corruption and usurpation of power, including interfering with the state’s election.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn6art2 " Id. ") Judge Durrell resigned on December 1, 1874, and the House discontinued impeachment proceedings.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn7art2 " Id. at § 2509. For a defense of Judge Durell’s actions in the matters in question, see Charles Lane, Edward Henry Durell: A Study in Reputation, 13 Green Bag 2D 153, 153–68 (2010). ")

The first and only time a Cabinet-level official was impeached occurred during the presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant. Grant’s Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, was impeached in 1876 for allegedly receiving payments in return for appointing an individual to maintain a trading post in Indian territory.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn8art2 " 3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2444–68; see H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93d Cong. 20 (Comm. Print 1974). ") Belknap resigned two hours before the House unanimously impeached him,[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn9art2 " Eleanore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials 165 (1992). ") but the Senate nevertheless conducted a trial in which Belknap was acquitted.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn10art2 " 3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2444–68. ") During the trial, upon objection by Secretary Belknap’s counsel that the Senate lacked jurisdiction because Belknap was now a private citizen, the Senate voted 37-29 in favor of jurisdiction.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn11art2 " 3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2459–60. Two of the thirty-seven voting “guilty” and twenty-two of the twenty-five voting “not guilty” stated that they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction in the case. 3 Hinds, supra note 1, § 2467. ") A majority of Senators voted to convict Secretary Belknap, but no article mustered a two-thirds majority, resulting in acquittal. A number of Senators voting to acquit indicated that they did so because the Senate did not have jurisdiction over an individual no longer in office.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn12art2 " Bushnell, supra note 9, at 186. ") Notably, although bribery is explicitly included as an impeachable offense in the Constitution, the impeachment articles brought against Secretary Belknap instead charged his behavior as constituting high crimes and misdemeanors.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn13art2 " U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. ") Bribery was mentioned at the Senate trial, but it was not specifically referenced in the impeachment articles themselves.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/jurisprudence-on-impeachable-offenses-1865-1900#fn14art2 " Bushnell, supra note 9, at 170. ")

Footnotes

1

3 Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States §§ 2504–05 (1907) [hereinafter Hinds]; Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Wickham, Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House 608–13 (2017).

2

3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2504–05.

3

Emily F.V. Tassel & Paul Finkelman, Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present 119 (1999).

4

See generally Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988).

5

3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2506–08.

6

Id.

7

Id. at § 2509. For a defense of Judge Durell’s actions in the matters in question, see Charles Lane, Edward Henry Durell: A Study in Reputation, 13 Green Bag 2D 153, 153–68 (2010).

8

3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2444–68; see H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93d Cong. 20 (Comm. Print 1974).

9

Eleanore Bushnell, Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials 165 (1992).

10

3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2444–68.

11

3 Hinds, supra note 1, at §§ 2459–60. Two of the thirty-seven voting “guilty” and twenty-two of the twenty-five voting “not guilty” stated that they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction in the case. 3 Hinds, supra note 1, § 2467.

12

Bushnell, supra note 9, at 186.

13

U.S. Const. art. II , § 4.

14

Bushnell, supra note 9, at 170.