Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?Is there any recourse to remove a dissatisfactory president even if he hasn't broken the law?Where is the process for Presidential Impeachment codified?Can the POTUS be impeached for gross incompetence?Is there a legal way that can be used to force the President of United States undergo a mental health examination?Can a US president be “re-impeached” by a new Congress on the same charges? Or would double jeopardy apply?Do any Republicans support impeachment of the president, or said what it would take for them to support it?Why does the opposition party always push so hard for impeachment?If one party controls the house and 2/3 of the senate, what's to stop them taking the presidency?Can a Member of Congress be “Impeached”?Can the President of the United States be impeached for crimes committed in an effort to gain the presidency?Could the US House sit on Articles of Impeachment instead of sending them to the Senate?
Beginner's snake game using PyGame
Asking for something with different prices
Is there a rule that prohibits us from using 2 possessives in a row?
Why use water tanks from a retired Space Shuttle?
Coding Challenge Solution - Good Range
Bringing Food from Hometown for Out-of-Town Interview?
Are grass strips more dangerous than tarmac?
Does a component pouch automatically contain components?
Have powerful mythological heroes ever run away or been deeply afraid?
What's the most polite way to tell a manager "shut up and let me work"?
Are there practical reasons to NOT use a stepper motor with lead screw for the X and or Y axes?
If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?
Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will
What people are called "кабан" and why?
How do I get a list of only the files (not the directories) from a package?
If a problem only occurs randomly once in every N times on average, how many tests do I have to perform to be certain that it's now fixed?
Pros and cons of writing a book review?
What is the right way to float a home lab?
Rotated Position of Integers
Elegant way to prove congruence
Can you please explain this joke: "I'm going bananas is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house"?
How can I grammatically understand "Wir über uns"?
How can a single Member of the House block a Congressional bill?
Orientable with respect to complex cobordism?
Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?
Is there any recourse to remove a dissatisfactory president even if he hasn't broken the law?Where is the process for Presidential Impeachment codified?Can the POTUS be impeached for gross incompetence?Is there a legal way that can be used to force the President of United States undergo a mental health examination?Can a US president be “re-impeached” by a new Congress on the same charges? Or would double jeopardy apply?Do any Republicans support impeachment of the president, or said what it would take for them to support it?Why does the opposition party always push so hard for impeachment?If one party controls the house and 2/3 of the senate, what's to stop them taking the presidency?Can a Member of Congress be “Impeached”?Can the President of the United States be impeached for crimes committed in an effort to gain the presidency?Could the US House sit on Articles of Impeachment instead of sending them to the Senate?
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:
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.
This clause apparently lays out the requirements for removing a US Office, and requires that the Officer being impeached commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?
For example suppose a Party managed to gain control of 2/3 of the Senate and the House and they decided to impeach a sitting President of another Party for purely political purposes. I.e. the President did nothing, but the Congress impeached anyway, or the Congress invented some specious charge to justify the impeachment.
In that case could the Supreme Court overturn an Impeachment?
united-states president constitution supreme-court impeachment
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
add a comment |
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:
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.
This clause apparently lays out the requirements for removing a US Office, and requires that the Officer being impeached commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?
For example suppose a Party managed to gain control of 2/3 of the Senate and the House and they decided to impeach a sitting President of another Party for purely political purposes. I.e. the President did nothing, but the Congress impeached anyway, or the Congress invented some specious charge to justify the impeachment.
In that case could the Supreme Court overturn an Impeachment?
united-states president constitution supreme-court impeachment
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
1
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
3
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
1
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19
add a comment |
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:
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.
This clause apparently lays out the requirements for removing a US Office, and requires that the Officer being impeached commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?
For example suppose a Party managed to gain control of 2/3 of the Senate and the House and they decided to impeach a sitting President of another Party for purely political purposes. I.e. the President did nothing, but the Congress impeached anyway, or the Congress invented some specious charge to justify the impeachment.
In that case could the Supreme Court overturn an Impeachment?
united-states president constitution supreme-court impeachment
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:
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.
This clause apparently lays out the requirements for removing a US Office, and requires that the Officer being impeached commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?
For example suppose a Party managed to gain control of 2/3 of the Senate and the House and they decided to impeach a sitting President of another Party for purely political purposes. I.e. the President did nothing, but the Congress impeached anyway, or the Congress invented some specious charge to justify the impeachment.
In that case could the Supreme Court overturn an Impeachment?
united-states president constitution supreme-court impeachment
united-states president constitution supreme-court impeachment
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
edited Mar 25 at 9:48
Nat
1,6161621
1,6161621
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
asked Mar 24 at 6:51
AgustusAgustus
17029
17029
1
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
3
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
1
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19
add a comment |
1
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
3
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
1
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19
1
1
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
3
3
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
1
1
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved. Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
|
show 2 more comments
Other answers have covered whether SCOTUS can overrule and impeachment and/or conviction of the President, so I won't rehash that. As to the other part....
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Treason? Distinctly defined.
Bribery? Also a specific crime.
"other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" (emphasis added) - pretty indistinct, so it means "and anything Congress thinks would merit removal." The feeling was that it was intentionally left vague so any serious abuses of office or powers that the Founders were unable to remember to list, exhaustively, or anticipate ("they forgot about playing Nickelback over the White House PA system!"), would not get a free pass. The idea was probably that Congress wouldn't abuse their powers in this regard in trivial partisan fashion, so they left it a bit open-ended and up to Congressional discretion.
So, you know, the Founding Fathers might have underestimated the pettiness of future generations, to a certain degree.
Here's some reading on the broad range of how people have tried to interpret the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" -
Slate: What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
add a comment |
To better clarify Nixon v. United States that @eyeballfrog mentioned, SCOTUS found that impeachment is a purely political matter, not a legal matter, and thus SCOTUS cannot rule (Though they can rule on the question of "Can they rule on impeachment" which does ask a legal question, the answer is "No, we cannot rule on an impeachment"). For a less politically contensious restriction, the question of "Are we at war?" is also considered a Political Question and the Courts have no power to rule on the legality of the proper authorities to declare a particular war on another nation.
Thus, Impeachments are all about politics, however of the two impeachments of the President, both were decided in favor of the President. In fact, the impeachment of President Johnson was decided by one vote (by a Democrat Breaking Ranks) who concluded that the charges were drummed up to justify a political removal by Impeachment, not one for behavior unbecoming of the office.
It's suspected, though not known for sure, that an overtly political impeachment of the President is going to go badly for the Party opposed to the President, the voting public would be upset by the move. While Nixon (Yes, the more famous one) was never impeached, his resignation came when he learned that the Impeachment charges had gotten out of House Committee and had enough votes to clear the house and make it to the senate, where the vote tally to impeach over Watergate had been known for much longer.
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39748%2fcan-the-supreme-court-overturn-an-impeachment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved. Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
|
show 2 more comments
In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved. Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
|
show 2 more comments
In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved. Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments." The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved. Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
edited Mar 25 at 15:45
Machavity
18.4k65888
18.4k65888
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
answered Mar 24 at 8:07
eyeballfrogeyeballfrog
58649
58649
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
|
show 2 more comments
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
In response to this I would point out that despite the 6th Amendment guaranteeing a right to a Trial By Jury, convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases. Why would it not be valid for a Court to do the same for an Impeachment?
– Agustus
Mar 24 at 18:54
5
5
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus I believe the idea is that a trial is conducted by the judiciary branch, and is thus subject to their review. However, an impeachment is conducted by the legislative branch, and thus not under their purview. Also, an impeachment is not a trial. It is similar to one, but it cannot result in the loss of life, liberty, or property. All it does is remove the person from office.
– eyeballfrog
Mar 24 at 19:36
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@Agustus Overturning the result of a trial does not deprive anyone of the right to have a trial. A decision has to become final at some point and before that it's not final and after that it is. There's no appealing a ruling of the Supreme Court but there is from lower courts. You can think of appeals as part of the trial process that you are entitled to. For judicial trials, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. For impeachments, it's Congress. Impeachments have to have a different ultimate authority from trials because they're functions of a different branch of government.
– David Schwartz
Mar 24 at 21:54
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
@David Shwartz I would disagree with you that overturning a Jury Verdict doesn't infringe upon rights - what then was the point of the trial and the Jury if the decision was not final? In any case I don't think it is acceptable practice for a Judge to deliver a new verdict based on the same evidence, verdicts are overturned for technical or fairness reasons only, resulting in a Mistrial.
– Agustus
Mar 25 at 1:21
4
4
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
@Agustus "convictions (or aquittals) reached by a Jury are regularly overturned by Higher Courts on procedural or technical bases": this is incorrect. Acquittals cannot be overturned on appeal. A jury trial is a protection for the accused against capricious action by a judge. If the person is acquitted, there's no more need for that protection. Also, appellate courts generally do not render verdicts; they vacate the lower court's ruling and tell the lower court to reconsider and make a new ruling.
– phoog
Mar 25 at 4:23
|
show 2 more comments
Other answers have covered whether SCOTUS can overrule and impeachment and/or conviction of the President, so I won't rehash that. As to the other part....
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Treason? Distinctly defined.
Bribery? Also a specific crime.
"other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" (emphasis added) - pretty indistinct, so it means "and anything Congress thinks would merit removal." The feeling was that it was intentionally left vague so any serious abuses of office or powers that the Founders were unable to remember to list, exhaustively, or anticipate ("they forgot about playing Nickelback over the White House PA system!"), would not get a free pass. The idea was probably that Congress wouldn't abuse their powers in this regard in trivial partisan fashion, so they left it a bit open-ended and up to Congressional discretion.
So, you know, the Founding Fathers might have underestimated the pettiness of future generations, to a certain degree.
Here's some reading on the broad range of how people have tried to interpret the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" -
Slate: What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
add a comment |
Other answers have covered whether SCOTUS can overrule and impeachment and/or conviction of the President, so I won't rehash that. As to the other part....
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Treason? Distinctly defined.
Bribery? Also a specific crime.
"other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" (emphasis added) - pretty indistinct, so it means "and anything Congress thinks would merit removal." The feeling was that it was intentionally left vague so any serious abuses of office or powers that the Founders were unable to remember to list, exhaustively, or anticipate ("they forgot about playing Nickelback over the White House PA system!"), would not get a free pass. The idea was probably that Congress wouldn't abuse their powers in this regard in trivial partisan fashion, so they left it a bit open-ended and up to Congressional discretion.
So, you know, the Founding Fathers might have underestimated the pettiness of future generations, to a certain degree.
Here's some reading on the broad range of how people have tried to interpret the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" -
Slate: What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
add a comment |
Other answers have covered whether SCOTUS can overrule and impeachment and/or conviction of the President, so I won't rehash that. As to the other part....
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Treason? Distinctly defined.
Bribery? Also a specific crime.
"other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" (emphasis added) - pretty indistinct, so it means "and anything Congress thinks would merit removal." The feeling was that it was intentionally left vague so any serious abuses of office or powers that the Founders were unable to remember to list, exhaustively, or anticipate ("they forgot about playing Nickelback over the White House PA system!"), would not get a free pass. The idea was probably that Congress wouldn't abuse their powers in this regard in trivial partisan fashion, so they left it a bit open-ended and up to Congressional discretion.
So, you know, the Founding Fathers might have underestimated the pettiness of future generations, to a certain degree.
Here's some reading on the broad range of how people have tried to interpret the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" -
Slate: What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
Other answers have covered whether SCOTUS can overrule and impeachment and/or conviction of the President, so I won't rehash that. As to the other part....
Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed (Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors)?
Yes, but it doesn't matter.
Treason? Distinctly defined.
Bribery? Also a specific crime.
"other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?" (emphasis added) - pretty indistinct, so it means "and anything Congress thinks would merit removal." The feeling was that it was intentionally left vague so any serious abuses of office or powers that the Founders were unable to remember to list, exhaustively, or anticipate ("they forgot about playing Nickelback over the White House PA system!"), would not get a free pass. The idea was probably that Congress wouldn't abuse their powers in this regard in trivial partisan fashion, so they left it a bit open-ended and up to Congressional discretion.
So, you know, the Founding Fathers might have underestimated the pettiness of future generations, to a certain degree.
Here's some reading on the broad range of how people have tried to interpret the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" -
Slate: What Are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
answered Mar 25 at 16:45
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.4k12859
12.4k12859
add a comment |
add a comment |
To better clarify Nixon v. United States that @eyeballfrog mentioned, SCOTUS found that impeachment is a purely political matter, not a legal matter, and thus SCOTUS cannot rule (Though they can rule on the question of "Can they rule on impeachment" which does ask a legal question, the answer is "No, we cannot rule on an impeachment"). For a less politically contensious restriction, the question of "Are we at war?" is also considered a Political Question and the Courts have no power to rule on the legality of the proper authorities to declare a particular war on another nation.
Thus, Impeachments are all about politics, however of the two impeachments of the President, both were decided in favor of the President. In fact, the impeachment of President Johnson was decided by one vote (by a Democrat Breaking Ranks) who concluded that the charges were drummed up to justify a political removal by Impeachment, not one for behavior unbecoming of the office.
It's suspected, though not known for sure, that an overtly political impeachment of the President is going to go badly for the Party opposed to the President, the voting public would be upset by the move. While Nixon (Yes, the more famous one) was never impeached, his resignation came when he learned that the Impeachment charges had gotten out of House Committee and had enough votes to clear the house and make it to the senate, where the vote tally to impeach over Watergate had been known for much longer.
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
add a comment |
To better clarify Nixon v. United States that @eyeballfrog mentioned, SCOTUS found that impeachment is a purely political matter, not a legal matter, and thus SCOTUS cannot rule (Though they can rule on the question of "Can they rule on impeachment" which does ask a legal question, the answer is "No, we cannot rule on an impeachment"). For a less politically contensious restriction, the question of "Are we at war?" is also considered a Political Question and the Courts have no power to rule on the legality of the proper authorities to declare a particular war on another nation.
Thus, Impeachments are all about politics, however of the two impeachments of the President, both were decided in favor of the President. In fact, the impeachment of President Johnson was decided by one vote (by a Democrat Breaking Ranks) who concluded that the charges were drummed up to justify a political removal by Impeachment, not one for behavior unbecoming of the office.
It's suspected, though not known for sure, that an overtly political impeachment of the President is going to go badly for the Party opposed to the President, the voting public would be upset by the move. While Nixon (Yes, the more famous one) was never impeached, his resignation came when he learned that the Impeachment charges had gotten out of House Committee and had enough votes to clear the house and make it to the senate, where the vote tally to impeach over Watergate had been known for much longer.
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
add a comment |
To better clarify Nixon v. United States that @eyeballfrog mentioned, SCOTUS found that impeachment is a purely political matter, not a legal matter, and thus SCOTUS cannot rule (Though they can rule on the question of "Can they rule on impeachment" which does ask a legal question, the answer is "No, we cannot rule on an impeachment"). For a less politically contensious restriction, the question of "Are we at war?" is also considered a Political Question and the Courts have no power to rule on the legality of the proper authorities to declare a particular war on another nation.
Thus, Impeachments are all about politics, however of the two impeachments of the President, both were decided in favor of the President. In fact, the impeachment of President Johnson was decided by one vote (by a Democrat Breaking Ranks) who concluded that the charges were drummed up to justify a political removal by Impeachment, not one for behavior unbecoming of the office.
It's suspected, though not known for sure, that an overtly political impeachment of the President is going to go badly for the Party opposed to the President, the voting public would be upset by the move. While Nixon (Yes, the more famous one) was never impeached, his resignation came when he learned that the Impeachment charges had gotten out of House Committee and had enough votes to clear the house and make it to the senate, where the vote tally to impeach over Watergate had been known for much longer.
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
To better clarify Nixon v. United States that @eyeballfrog mentioned, SCOTUS found that impeachment is a purely political matter, not a legal matter, and thus SCOTUS cannot rule (Though they can rule on the question of "Can they rule on impeachment" which does ask a legal question, the answer is "No, we cannot rule on an impeachment"). For a less politically contensious restriction, the question of "Are we at war?" is also considered a Political Question and the Courts have no power to rule on the legality of the proper authorities to declare a particular war on another nation.
Thus, Impeachments are all about politics, however of the two impeachments of the President, both were decided in favor of the President. In fact, the impeachment of President Johnson was decided by one vote (by a Democrat Breaking Ranks) who concluded that the charges were drummed up to justify a political removal by Impeachment, not one for behavior unbecoming of the office.
It's suspected, though not known for sure, that an overtly political impeachment of the President is going to go badly for the Party opposed to the President, the voting public would be upset by the move. While Nixon (Yes, the more famous one) was never impeached, his resignation came when he learned that the Impeachment charges had gotten out of House Committee and had enough votes to clear the house and make it to the senate, where the vote tally to impeach over Watergate had been known for much longer.
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
answered Mar 25 at 15:13
hszmvhszmv
6,51011027
6,51011027
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39748%2fcan-the-supreme-court-overturn-an-impeachment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I would also suggest that the answer clarify the terms of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or is it any felony or misdemeanor? Additionally as history points out, Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
– john
Mar 24 at 7:38
3
I think you are misinterpreting the word "misdemeanors", reading in its most common modern usage as a minor crime. But its older use, and I think (though I'm by no means a Constitutional scholar) what is meant in the impeachment clause, is simply "bad behavior towards others". (I will refrain from citing current examples :-)) See for instance merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdemeanor
– jamesqf
Mar 24 at 16:47
1
@jamesqf More specifically, the term is high misdemeanor, which is more or less synonymous with "abuse of office".
– chrylis
Mar 25 at 5:17
@chrylis: Yes. Exactly the term I should have used!
– jamesqf
Mar 25 at 17:11
"Does that clause mean that that the FULL EXTENT AND LIMIT of impeachable offenses are those listed?" This question is a duplicate and has already been answered. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9677/…
– John
Mar 25 at 17:19