INTRODUCTION 

Since 1789, The Constitution of the United States has been the governing document establishing how the US government should be run. A major aspect of The Constitution is the  balance of powers it provides between the three branches of government to keep each other in check. A substantial check on the power of the Executive is impeachment, which Congress has the authority to bring against the president and a number of elected officials to remove them from office. Since the ratification of The Constitution, three American presidents and sixteen other officials have faced formal impeachment inquiries, yet no president has yet been removed from office through the articles of impeachment. This article will show the difficulty in keeping the Executive branch in check through impeachment, especially since the current US House of Representatives recently crafted and approved articles of impeachment against President Trump as a check on his presidential powers. 

This article seeks to provide side-by-side comparisons and explanations for this impeachment process: its genesis, the process for approving articles to create standing, the hearings, possible outcomes, and its contextual relationship with past precedent. As a citizen and responsible voter, it is important to understand the impeachment powers granted to Congress, as well as the judicial provisions and the applicability of the Rule of Law. Studying  precedent helps to recognize that the reasons for, as well as the early process of, President Trump’s impeachment resemble those of Former President Andrew Johnson’s, and they prove that the Constitution’s impeachment clauses are still relevant. 

BACKGROUND 

The Framers of the Constitution included the ability to impeach a high government official in the Constitution because of the tyrannical experience with English monarchs and the intolerable policies implemented. For example, King George III was accused of obstructing justice when he paid judges and “removed judiciary powers from the people.” As a result, some colonists were not granted a trial by jury. Obstruction of justice is now considered a high crime or misdemeanor by an executive official in the American Constitution. It was, and still is, believed that it should be the right of the governed to decide who governs and to what extent. 

Impeachment powers are vested in the House of Representatives in Article I, Section 2 Clause 5 of the Constitution, while hearings are carried out and deliberated by the elected US Senate members similar to a Grand Jury in criminal cases. The presiding judge is the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, so the hearings are conducted much like an appellate trial in question and answer format. A vote of two thirds of the Senate determines the conviction of the tried party. If convicted, the party is subject to indictment, trial, and consequence by the law only after removal from office.

COMPARISON

After review of the Constitution’s clauses it begs the question of how President Trump recently became subject to accusations of bribery, treason, and other high crimes. Each step and incident compares to similar steps and incidents during the impeachments of Former Presidents Johnson and Nixon.

In September 2019, a whistleblower claimed the President partook in a quid pro quo with the Ukranian President, Volodymyr Zelensky. The impeachable offense includes the exploitation of executive powers by the President who, allegedly, threatened to withhold $391 million of military aid unless the Ukranian President promised to investigate a political rival of Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Quid pro quos are exchanges, but this exchange is personally valuable to President Trump at $400 million in military assets and can be construed as a bribe. 

The claim against the current president is critical for applying the rule of law; if the President makes a request with a determined monetary value, while leveraging executive powers vested by the U.S. Constitution, then the President inherently commits treason in the form of bribery. Soliciting interference in a Presidential election undermines the Republic and gives standing to impeachment motions. 

This case against President Trump is very similar to the case against Former President Johnson, who was mainly tried or high misdemeanors and violations while in office, such as violating the Tenure of Office Act, seizing documents unlawfully, and the mismanagement of military funds. During the Civil War period, Johnson was not involved with foreign policy to the extent that President Trump is, but his actions resembled anti-unionist ideals. Post-Civil War, President Johnson campaigned against the Republican party’s reconstruction efforts when he vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, a policy meant to protect African Americans and urged Southern states not to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. He was at odds with Congress while gaining and providing support for the secessionists. 

The committees that are important to this investigation are the Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Judiciary Committees because of access to international firms and acquisitions of documents and financial transactions of the President. This process will create an inclusive impeachment packet that would leave little gray area for the reason of the impeachment investigation. 

Throughout the entirety of the House’s 1868 investigation of President Johnson, it was continuously found that he took actions with the intent to “disgrace Congress” according to Massachusetts Representative Butler, and arguably the Constitution itself. Johnson and his defense argued that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional to explain why he overstepped Congress’s approval power when dismissing his Secretary of War.

 When President Johnson mismanaged military money, he overstepped Congressional power a second time, similarly to the allegations against President Trump. The power to manage funds, especially the military’s, is vested in Congress in Article I Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution and the president controls the movement and deployment of the military. This clause was established to split the military power between the Commander in Chief and Congress in order to protect the right of the citizens of which the armies protect.  This division of power minimizes exploitation and excessive enforcement, thus rendering a president’s misallocation of military funds a justifiable reason for impeachment.

NEXT STEPS

The House committees are currently conducting their investigations, therefore, this indicates that an agreement was reached about the rules and investigation processes of impeachment. In the coming weeks and months, the public should see the committee’s findings and witness statements (with limits to their questioning) published. Before hearings begin, the public should know who is testifying, what they have said, and what evidence will be presented to the Chief Justice. Currently, neither the whistleblower, nor Biden’s son, Hunter, are on the witness list. Some Representatives, such as Republican Will Hurd of Texas would like to see Hunter Biden testify due to his position on the board of a Ukraininan natural gas company, Burisma, which has been involved in investigations about conspiracy and tax evasion.  

Johnson’s process consisted of investigating the applicability of the Tenure of Office Act and the Army Appropriations Act to his actions and exactly how some of his speeches brought Congress into deep criticism and disgrace. Most witness public testimonies were deemed unimportant to the case besides the answers provided by the Secretary of War, Stanton, and those directly involved with the Department of Defense. 

This month, the public hearings by the Investigations Committee will be held before the six committees send their articles of impeachment to the floor of the House for debate. If the whistleblower’s claims are proven to be true, the debates will most likely cover specific clauses of the Constitution and how the President violated them. As previously mentioned in this article, President Trump could be accused of conspiring to use military funds to help his reelection campaign. Conditioning military aid that is already approved directly conflicts with Congress’s power to raise and financially support the armed forces. The House will then vote to move forward with the impeachment and the Senate will vote on a Motion to Proceed and decide the rules and restrictions of the trial. Republicans have the majority of the Senate, therefore, not only might the rules and restrictions be staunch, the Articles of Impeachment may not be allowed to proceed. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside if the Articles, rules, and restrictions are approved. The appointed managers of the House will prosecute, and lawyers of the President will defend with the full Senate as the jury. 

Since the 2016 election, some Republicans have become vehement verbal defenders against partisan attacks, yet never propose actions or policies to fix political problems. Similarly, if it comes to a trial there’s no guarantee of the President’s acquittal. For example, Senator Graham is considered a staunch supporter of the President, but he has been criticized for not doing more to defend President Trump, like conducting his own investigation of Biden’s son. Some Republicans, especially Graham, do not wish to act outside of the clearly outlined duties Congress. It might be easier and less politically damaging to keep up with their minimum duties vested in them by the constitution.

In President Johnson’s case, Republicans held the Senate majority too, but he was unpopular among both parties. Though the eleven articles were agreed upon and held up well in trial, the President, though a Democrat, was acquitted because the necessary two-thirds majority vote for conviction never happened. Each round of voting resulted in 35-19 pro-conviction, thus he carried out his presidential term only to rejoin the Senate. The deciding vote of President Trump’s destiny will most likely be unanimous along party lines: Democrats for impeachment and Republicans for acquittal. 

CONCLUSIONS

Precedent is one of the most important aspects of the U.S. Justice System. Impeachment is not purely a political process, but also a legal one; after trial in the Senate, the president is removed from official office and becomes subject to regular indictment and punishment in a court of law. The Framers designed the Constitution to keep the faith of the people in the government by keeping powers in check and protecting it from tyrants and possible infringement on citizens’ rights. 

Since 2016, contention between the political parties fluctuates with fiery passion and debate. Whether Americans are for or against removing President Trump from office, it is unlikely they will witness his removal. Even though overstepping the Secretary of State’s foreign policy and conspiring to mismanage the military’s funds are not sanctioned by the Constitution, maintaining socio-political peace is necessary, especially before another Presidential election. 

President Johnson’s impeachment began and ended within his final year of Presidency. After he was acquitted, Johnson remained in office and continued to fight Congress and veto bills he thought unconstitutional. President Trump is more than halfway through his term and may also find himself safe from removal if the Senate decides he did not commit impeachable offenses. Johnson and President Trump’s alleged actions were political and personal. Johnson survived the deliberation of a majority Republican Senate, so President Trump might be just as lucky when facing his majority Republican Senate. If President Johnson, a stubborn and unelected President, survived eleven articles of impeachment, President Trump will most likely finish his term, even with enemies in Congress.