be impeached. Subsequent to August 6, the Framers were able to discuss impeachment with a better perspective of the Executive Office. Nevertheless, they did not address the issue until after a committee draft on September 4 established the final mode of Presidential election and defined "treason and bribery" as impeachable offenses. 2 Farrand 495. This draft established that the Presidential term would be four years and the President eligible for reelection at the end of that period. 2 Farrand 493. The process of election or reelection would be a strong guarantee against maladministration or any other policy or practice considered inconsistent with the public good. When the issue was discussed for the last time on September 8 the following debate took place. Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to - Mr. Madison So vague a term will be equivalent Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm will prevent maladministration. Col. Mason withdrew "maladministration" & 2 Farrand 550 (emphasis added). It is evident from the actual debate and from the events leading up to it that Morris' remark that "An election of every four years will prevent maladministration," id. expressed the will of the Convention. Thus, the impeachment provision adopted was designed to deal exclusively with indictable criminal conduct. The relevant constitutional debates support nothing to the contrary. One further point should be mentioned. The Convention rejected all non-criminal definitions of impeachable offenses. Terms like "mal-practice, "6/ "neglect of duty, by Congress on application by a majority of the executives of the several states, 1,8 / and "misconduct "9/ were all considered and discarded by the Framers. To distort the clear meaning of the phrase "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by including non-indictable conduct would thus most certainly violate the Framers' intent. 6/1 Farrand 88. 7/ Id. 8/1 Farrand 244. 9/2 Farrand 68-69. IV. THE LEGAL MEANING OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION As shown above, the Framers, in their concern for maintaining the independence of the executive and judiciary, specifically rejected such standards as "maladministration" and other broad concepts in favor of the more limited term "high crime and misdemeanors." They also rejected such a process as "address." Address was an English practice by which an executive or judicial officer could be removed from office by a majority of the legislative branch. Thus, they manifested their intention to narrow the scope of impeachable offenses. But is it necessary to look beyond the words "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," which are so clear and unequivocal in and of themselves? It was stated in the trial of Andrew Johnson by one of his counsel with some effect: In my apprehension, the teachings, the requirements, Rives & Bailey, Proceedings in the Trial of Andrew Johnson |