fbpx

The House Has No Obligation to Impeach the President

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has recently stated that she does not favor impeaching President Trump. Some have questioned her position on the grounds that the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors subject to impeachment and that therefore the House has a legal obligation impeach him. This latter proposition is a legal claim about the meaning of the Constitution and it is false.

As with any constitutional question, we should begin with the text of the Constitution. The most relevant provision is in Article II, which provides that “[t]he 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 provision notably does not lay any obligation on the House to impeach the president. In Article I of the Constitution, the House is given the “sole power” of impeachment. The grant of a power does not generally imply an obligation to use it.

Moreover, the nature of impeachment itself suggests that the House has discretion on whether or not to proceed with impeachment. It is well-established that the House acts as a prosecutor in the proceeding to remove an executive officer. Prosecutors generally enjoy prosecutorial discretion not to proceed.

But beyond the discretionary nature of an essentially prosecutorial power, the removal process itself contemplates political judgment. As I argued at the time of the Clinton impeachment, the impeachment process focuses on removing those who are deemed unfit for office. The requirement that they committed high crimes and misdemeanors as a precondition to impeachment is an important one, because it requires some objective misconduct. As a result, it assures that impeachment is more than a simple legislative vote of no confidence that would turn our system of separated powers into parliamentary government. But the requirement does not remove the need for political judgment in deciding whether the official is unfit under the circumstances.

Surprisingly, Professor Cass Sunstein is quoted in a recent New York Times article as dissenting from this view:

If we have a clear impeachable offense that is not a borderline one but a clear one, the impeachment process is mandatory because the House of Representatives is an agent of ‘we the people,’ the first three words of the Constitution.

With respect, this argument is feeble. The powers and obligations of the legislature as the people’s agents are set forth in the Constitution. The fact of that agency does not add to or subtract from them. Perhaps the Preamble to the Constitution could help in revolving an ambiguity, but there is no ambiguity here and Sunstein provides no analysis how its reference to the people might clarify one.

Lest it be thought that my legal opinion is influenced by partisan considerations: it is the same one that I gave in an answer to the House Judiciary Committee when it was considering the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on March 15, 2019 at 15:23:52 pm

"The House Has No Obligation to Impeach the President"

Heck, apparently it does NOT even recognize an obligation to pass general laws preferring instead a plethora of "Hope and Changey" (ultimately) campaign (fodder) slogans.

Why worry about some inconsequential thing like impeachment.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 06, 2019 at 02:33:04 am

"The House Has No Obligation to Impeach the President".

The grounds for the impeachment of a federal officer - including the President - is laid out in Article 2, 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."

If there be evidence of such abuses of office, then in keeping with the US Constitution, the person holding such office accountable for such abuses is mandated to be removed. The word "shall" makes it so. It is Constitutional Law.

The US Constitution also states in Article 1, Section 2 that the House of Representatives "shall have sole power" to impeach.

Since 1884, newly elected members of Congress have been required to speak this oath of office:

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

"that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic......and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God"

So no: you are most certainly wrong here - the House has a constitutional obligation to prosecute the President should any serious accusations of abuses of office occur, and determine if evidence warrants submitting Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. This is in keeping with their sworn oath to uphold the duties of their office, and to support and defend the Constitution, which actually mandates that they do it.

If the President "shall" be removed from office if he commits abuses as described in Article 2, Section 4, and the House "shall" have the sole power to determine this, how can the House uphold their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution by doing anything else but? The answer is: they cannot. By "shall", the Constitution does NOT give the House leeway to decide one way or another. That is what is called a Constitutional Obligation.

read full comment
Image of C.L. Eaddy
C.L. Eaddy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.