G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Five impeachment myths that matter | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Five impeachment myths that matter

1788911_web1_1768625-681bd2d167b14d479f432f257a4dae62
AP
President Trump on Oct. 4.

Media coverage of possible presidential impeachment dominates the news today as few issues in recent memory. Yet, the constitutional framework that controls impeachment (scattered throughout Articles I, II and III), is little understood by even normally informed Americans.

An ancient practice derived from English common law, impeachment was incorporated into our 1787 Constitution with minimum specificity and maximum ambiguity about what constitutes an impeachable offense or how the impeachment process was to play out.

Consequently, widely held false beliefs or myths abound today about the whys and wherefores of the impeachment process.

Here are some of the most problematic of them.

Myth: Impeachment is a legal process similar to an indictment in which the president is charged with some criminal act. To be impeached is to be charged with a crime.

Truth: Impeachment is a political process — a political process cloaked in the legal framework provided by the Constitution. Longstanding Department of Justice policy precludes a president from being indicted for any crime while in office. But the constitutional provision for impeachment provides that the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In practice, an impeachable offense has become whatever a majority of the House says it is. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was driven by policy conflicts underlying Reconstruction; Richard Nixon’s imminent impeachment was driven by impeachment articles charging abuse of power, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress; while Bill Clinton’s impeachment carried the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Myth: Successful impeachment removes a president from office to be succeeded by the vice president.

Truth: A successful impeachment (majority vote in the House to impeach) simply sets up some sort of trial in the U.S. Senate requiring a two-thirds vote to convict. We don’t know exactly what happens if the Senate convicts because it has never happened for a president. No president has ever been removed. Johnson fell short of conviction by a single vote, Nixon resigned before a formal impeachment vote and Clinton was acquitted easily. Underscoring the uncertainty, if Trump is impeached and convicted, nothing in the Constitution prohibits him from subsequently running for a second term — although some scholars think the Senate upon conviction could also bar him from serving in elective office again.

Myth: Impeachment will energize the president’s base against the party pressing for impeachment, causing them to suffer significant losses in the next election. This myth’s evil twin myth is that impeachment causes an incumbent president’s popularity to decline.

Truth: We simply have no basis to know or project the electoral consequences of an impeachment process. It has swung both directions across the three presidential impeachments in national history. Republicans instigated and orchestrated the 1868 Andrew Johnson impeachment — and went on to increase their majorities in Congress as well as win the White House. Similarly, Democrats led the charge against Nixon in 1974 leading to historic gains for their party in the midterms. But the Clinton 1998 impeachment process produced notably mixed electoral results — with Democrats scoring rare pickups in the 1998 midterms but losing the presidency two years later. Pundits will spin endless scenarios purporting to predict impeachments impact on 2020. The truth is nobody knows for sure.

Myths: The factual basis for impeachment is clear and unambiguous. A president knows or should know when he has committed an impeachable act and the legislators who vote impeachment rely upon bright red lines that spell out what is or isn’t impeachable.

Truth: Nothing seems more misunderstood about impeachment than the basis for it. In creating Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution (“…The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of … high Crimes and Misdemeanors…), the Founding Fathers left it to Congress to determine impeachable behavior. In practice, Congress’ authority has been limited by its ability to convince the American people that a president should be impeached. The lack of public support for the impeachment of Bill Clinton was particularly damaging to Republicans in the 1998 midterm election. In 2019, the strength of public support for Trump’s impeachment will determine the path the impeachment process will take. This is one reason why recent polls showing growing support for Trump’s impeachment loom so menacing to Trump supporters.

Ultimately, the American people decide what is or isn’t impeachable with Article II of the Constitution acting as not much more than a legal prop in their decision-making. It is this key role played by the electorate that makes debunking of these prevalent myths urgent. An informed citizenry makes the best decisions — and that is no myth.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.