I. Introduction The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction at six places. The scope of the power is set out in Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the Other provisions deal with procedures and consequences. Article I, Section 2 states: The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Similarly, Article I, Section 3, describes the Senate's role: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. The same section limits the consequences of judgment in cases of impeachment: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Of lesser significance, although mentioning the subject, are: Article II, Section 2: The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Article III, Section 2: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.... Before November 15, 1973 a number of Resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon had been introduced in the House of Representatives, and had been referred by the Speaker of the House, Hon. Carl Albert, to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration, investigation and report. On November 15, anticipating the magnitude of the Committee's task, the House voted funds to enable the Committee to carry out its assignment and in that regard to select an inquiry staff to assist the Committee. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives by a vote of 410 to 4 "authorized and directed" the Committee on the Judiciary "to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America." To implement the authorization (H. Res. 803) the House also provided that "For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require by subpoena or otherwise... the attendance and testimony of any person... and... the production of such things; and ... by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information, as it deems necessary to such investigation." ... This was but the second time in the history of the United States that the House of Representatives resolved to investigate the possibility of impeachment of a President. Some 107 years earlier the House had investigated whether President Andrew Johnson should be impeached. Understandably, little attention or thought has been given the subject of the presidential impeachment process during the intervening years. The Inquiry Staff, at the request of the Judiciary Committee, has prepared this memorandum on constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment. As the factual investigation progresses, it will become possible to state more specifically the constitutional, legal and conceptual framework within which the staff and the Committee work. Delicate issues of basic constitutional law are involved. Those issues cannot be defined in detail in advance of full investigation of the facts. The Supreme Court of the United States does not reach out, in the abstract, to rule on the constitutionality of statutes or of conduct. Cases must be brought and adjudicated on particular facts in terms of the Constitution. Similarly, the House does not engage in abstract, advisory or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers; rather, it must await full development of the facts and understanding of the events to which those facts relate. What is said here does not reflect any prejudgment of the facts or any opinion or inference respecting the allegations being investigated. This memorandum is written before completion of the full and fair factual investigation the House directed be undertaken. It is intended to be a review of the precedents and available interpretive materials, seeking general principles to guide the Committee. This memorandum offers no fixed standards for determining whether grounds for impeachment exist. The framers did not write a fixed standard. Instead thev adopted from English history a standard sufficiently general and flexible to meet future circumstances and events, the nature and character of which they could not foresee. The House has set in motion an unusual constitutional process, conferred solely upon it by the Constitution, by directing the Judiciary Committee to "investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach." This action was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority of both political parties. Nor was it intended to obstruct or weaken the presidency. It was supported by Members firmly committed to the need for a strong presidency and a healthy executive branch of our government. The House of Representatives acted out of a clear sense of constitutional duty to resolve issues of a kind that more familiar constitutional processes are unable to resolve. To assist the Committee in working toward that resolution, this memorandum reports upon the history, purpose and meaning of the constitutional phrase, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." during which time no member shall be recognized for a period to exceed 15 minutes. At the conclusion of general debate, the proposed articles shall be read and members shall be recognized for a period of 5 minutes to speak on each proposed article and on any and all amendments thereto. Each proposed article, and any additional article, shall be separately considered for amendment and immediately thereafter voted upon as amended for recommendation to the House. At the conclusion of consideration of the articles for amendment and recommendation to the House, if any article has been agreed to, the original motion shall be considered as adopted and the chairman shall report to the House said resolution of impeachment, together with such articles as have been agreed to. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. This amendment in the nature of a substitute achieves two procedural matters that have been under debate. It does achieve the point made by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, that there be articles prepared and available at the outset of general debate. It also submits that there shall be a vote on each article at the conclusion of the perfecting thereof, meeting the objections raised by several members on this side. It has, as a substitute, no other purpose than that as distinguished from the resolution of the gentleman. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I might say that this resolution, the substitute, is in the general form which was considered at the Republican caucus this morning, and does contain the objectives, as the gentleman stated, that were suggested or the objections that were made by Mr. Hutchinson and a suggestion he made with regard to the importance of having pro posed articles of impeachment on the desk; and also the further element of having the articles voted upon as they are considered, after they have been considered. I think this is a vast improvement over the proposal offered by the gentleman from Alabama, and I would intend to support the substitute. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes; I realize this places a great burden on those who are in the process of preparing articles, and I do not do this lightly, because I think it will necessitate a sort of 24-hour rush from here on out to arrive at articles which will be in a form that are thought to be worthy of consideration by this committee as early as tomorrow night. Nonetheless, I do accept the premise that this is desirable and I move the adoption of the substitute. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. KASTENMEIER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Do I correctly understand that the third line of the gentleman's resolution means that we will have before us the proposed articles of impeachment, which will be a part of the resolution that we are debating during general debate? Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman is correct. The line reads together with articles of impeachment, and I presume this to mean articles Any member who has articles of impeachment will have at the desk |