Talk:Impeachment in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

LINKS for Impeachment of George W. Bush

This section looks like an attempt to campaign pro-impeachment. Also, the subject looks misplaced here. I would move it to George W. Bush but I am not familiar enough with the subject(s). -Nabla 2005-07-07 16:31:21 (UTC)

I've integrated the Bush section with the "Impeachment in the States section". With no real threat of impeachment at the current time, it doesn't make sense to have an entire section devoted to Bush. I kept the link to the Zogby poll since it accurately describes the poll's findings. Carbonite | Talk 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, thanks. Removing the POV check tag... Nabla 2005-07-07 19:38:01 (UTC)

The "Impeachment in the States" section is about impeachment of state officials. It makes no sense at all to put impeachment of Bush here. RichardMathews 2005-07-09 10:05:01 (UTC)

You're right. I originally read that as "Impeachments in the States" (meaning United States). Of course, that would have been redundant given the title of the article. I moved it to the end of the history section, the only place where it really fit. If it ever becomes more than poll data, it could have its own section. Carbonite | Talk 9 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Should delete reference to impeaching Bush, has no business in Wikipedia. Want to see elevant facts encyclopedia. This may me a fact that X percent want to impeach Bush, but it has not context here.

I'm in the impeach camp myself, but I agree with you. What may be more appropriate is an article written to describe what constitutes "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Let people draw their own conclusions by laying out the facts and the related law. And now that I've added a link to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, I don't even think it needs that. Chadlupkes 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent Counsel

This article previously mentioned that an independent cousel could recomend impeachment. This office no longer exists. red in 1999, largely because people Ken Star's investigation to have been overly broad and generally a waste of money (remeber he was investigating Whitewater).

Could someone persuade a professor of Constitutional law out there to contribute an explanation of exactly where in the process of impeachment of a member of the federal executive branch the Special Counsel comes in? Is it before or after the House Judiciary Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment? And what is the involvement of the U.S. Attorney General? From what I've been able to gather, what happens is the Judiciary Committee sends informal issues of concern to the DOJ's Attorney General who needs to agree that the issues need further investigation in order to refer them to the Special Counsel who investigates them and if he/she decides the conduct is, in fact, possibly a serious breach of the official's Constitutional duties, sends the results in the form of a recommendation back to the Committee who then formalizes one or more Articles of Impeachment which are then voted on by the full House. But I haven't been able to find a reliable online resource to verify the accuracy of my understanding.MaskedWoman (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court Judges?

a california talk show host insists that all federal judges can be impeached except for Supreme Court judges. he says they are exempt, and in order to impeach them we need to amend the constitution to say we can. is that true? Kingturtle 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment only applies to "civil officers" of the United States and the President. Supreme Court justices can hold their officers "during good behavior". It hasn't really ever been tested, so most claims about how to get rid of a Supreme Court justice are speculation. Peyna 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The CA talk show host is wrong. Supreme Court Justices, and all federal judges, hold their office during "good behavior" and the only way to prove "bad behavior" is by impeachment and removal. One Supreme Court Justice was already impeached (Justice Samuel Chase) in the 1800s. The Constitution does not need to be amended to impeach Supreme Court justices and someone should remark to that talk show host that he/she doesn't know of what he speaks.JasonCNJ 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, one must remember what happened to Abe Fortas and William O. Douglas.

Impeachment initiates the Constitutionaly specified power of removal for government officials including judges and US attorneys. Article 1, section 2 The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Impeachment in the House can be initiated by petition of citizens, state assemblies, grand juries, and members of the House according to [1] Jeffersons Rules § 603.75.68.130.45 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. ... Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege. 75.68.130.45 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury…”75.68.130.45 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment is raised in the House of Representatives and perfected by trial in the Senate. Article 1 section 8 Congress shall have the power to (list of eneumerated powers)... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.75.68.130.45 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal Interestingly the constitution provides this as the sole means of removal including in the case of the US attorneys though it has been argued back and forth for two hundred years.75.68.130.45 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This last, unsigned comment, is confusing. Fortas was denied confirmation, not impeached, and Douglas suffered sever health problems due to advanced old age, but was not removed.HarvardOxon 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortas was an associate justice from 1965, and due to a scandal, and the beginning of impeachment proceedings in 1969, he was forced to resign. Douglas had to endure impeachment hearings, which failed in 1970Ericl 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment in the States Question

National Governors Association website (http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=dc89224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD) says: POWELL CLAYTON, Arkansas's ninth governor, ....During the Civil War, he joined the Union army, served as captain of the First Kansas Infantry, and rose to the rank of brigadier general. Relocating to Arkansas after the war, Clayton crusaded for the adoption of the 1868 state constitution, which readmitted Arkansas to the Union. That same year he ran unopposed for the governor's office, and on July 2, 1868 he was sworn into office. During his tenure in office, violence was escalating due to the organization of the Ku Klux Klan in April 1868. He proclaimed martial law in 11 counties and organized a black militia to restore order and hunt down members of the Ku Klux Klan. Clayton had many political enemies who tried numerous times to impugn his character and reputation. He was investigated by the U.S. Congress, and impeached by the Arkansas Legislature, but both times the charges were dropped. On January 11, 1871, Clayton was elected to the U.S. Senate, and on March 17, 1871, he resigned from the governor's office....

But I can't find much info on his being impeached. he is not listed in this article and in his wikipedia entry (Powell Clayton), impeachment is not mentioned. Does anybody have more info on whether or not he should be in the list of impeached governors?

Yes he should. I added Huey Long to the list, since he was famously impeached and aquitted.

dates of impeachment

The table of impeached officers contains errors and ambiguities. It's not clear whether the "date" column refers to the date of impeachment by the House, or ultimate action by the Senate. For instance, Alcee Hastings is listed as Oct. 20, 1988. That's wrong for two reasons---he was impeached in August 1988, and removed on Oct. 20, 1989, not 1988. (See sources, esp. Washington Post, in Hastings article.) I would correct it, but I don't have a precise date for the Aug. 1988 impeachment, and don't want to mess up the table if the rest of the dates are impeachment, not ultimate action. Please help if you can. Theleek 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, when using the sorting mechanism of the table on the dates, the table sorts alphabetically, which is not intuitive. It should sort chronologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.21.153.120 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed The Date column contained non-date data (specifically cited references), so the processor could not determine the correct sorting order. A new References column was created so that only dates now appear in the Date column and it sorts correctly. No attempt to address the 2006 complaint (which may have already been addressed in the interim). General Ization ^Talk 15:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Impeaching Members of Congress

I'll mirror my statement on the main Impeachment page that the Analysis of the Constitution, published by the GPO and done by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, concludes that the precedent in the Blount case establishes that members of Congress are not subject to impeachment. Doug 04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement on the opinion of the Congressional Research Service and disagree that Members of Congress are not "civil officers" within the meaning of the Constitution and thus are not subject to impeachment. Most importantly, the source you cited does NOT conclude that Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment - it cites simply that the Senate dismissed the Blount impeachment. That the Senate took that action is undisputed. The only question is why. And the Senate is not official on record settling that question...the opinions of the Congressional Research Service to the contrary notwithstanding. JasonCNJ 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon vs. impeachment

The article currently states:

The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment, but may, as usual, pardon a defendant in the case of a criminal prosecution.

Does this mean that the President cannot prevent an impeachment or convinction by Senate, but he can still use the pardon on the invididual removed from office following the Senate conviction? The Consitution language is a bit unclear, to me at least, with the other viable intepretation being that once someone is removed from office on a Senate conviction, that person may no longer be pardoned by the President in any criminal or civil case brought in an ordinary court for the same offense. IgorSF 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording has since been improved to indicate these are independent. -- Beland (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment while at war

I was told recently that a sitting President could not be impeached if the country is at war. I'll admit that I don't know as much as most of you about the U.S. Constitution, but could this be true? If so, it would certainly answer a few big questions!!

Constitutionally, that is entirely false. A sitting President (or any Civil Officer of the United States) can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, by a majority of those voting on an impeachment resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives (a quorum being present). Those officials are subject to impeachment at any time; the House of Representatives has the "sole Power" to determine who is impeached and when, if ever, an impeachment happens.

Perhaps you were told that a sitting President couldn't be impeached while the country is at war for political reasons, i.e...the House would politically find it difficult to vote for impeachment during that time? But, rest assured, from a legal or Constitutional framework, a sitting President can absolutely be impeached at any time by the House -- war or no war. Hope this helps clears up any confusion. JasonCNJ 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale Plagarism Alert

It appears that a major portion of the text of this article has been duplicated.

One version is found at bluedogs.us [2]. According to archive.org [3] this article first appeared at bluedogs about 5/13/2007.

The Edit History of this page however shows that a key section in the article, "Impeachment Attempts", along with key phrases within the section, was first used in the Revision as of 21:55, 6 November 2006 [4].

Noted here that based on this log data it would appear the bluedogs site plagarized from the WP site and not the other way around.

• That's ok...one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that the license allows for the information to be freely copied (see WP:License). So it's actually a good thing that they're posting it, as it helps make Wikipedia even more useful to the general public. --CapitalR 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment resolution against VP Cheney

We need an update on this situation. What happend in January 2008? GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"On November 6, 2007, the House referred an impeachment motion, Resolution 333, pressed again by Kucinich, against Vice President Cheney to the House Judiciary Committee for further study. The Republicans wanted this motion killed, but Democrats forced them to push the measure into the House Judiciary Committee for further discussion."

This is not what actually happened that day, or at least it is very misleading. The Democrats wanted the motion killed. The Republicans voted to advance it. Can someone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.126.111 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Democratic leadership wanted to table (which would kill) the resolution on impeaching Cheney. They expected the Republicans to join in support of the motion to table, which would offset the liberal Democrats who wanted to vote no on the motion to table. However, during the vote, the Republicans then decided to oppose the motion to table, thinking that forcing the Democrats to have the debate would be a political winner for the Republicans. The Republicans voted en masse against the motion to table and combined with the votes of liberal Democrats who wanted to consider the motion, the motion to table failed. In response, Democratic leadership proposed a Motion to Refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. This motion would not kill the resolution outright but would not impose any requirement on the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing, to take a vote, or to otherwise take any action to consider the resolution. (Previous versions of the same resolutions were unceremoniously referred to Judiciary where they received no attention.) Democratic Leadership pressed upon its membership to support the Motion to Refer, which served the interests of both the liberals who wanted to consider it and the remaining membership who wanted to kill it.

I don't know what this means for the article; I haven't really read the article or the area in question. I just wanted to clear up what happened. JasonCNJ (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

question

If a Vice President of the United States were to be impeached, who would preside over the Senate trial? Bwrs (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, like when a President is impeached. But neither Senate rules nor the Constitution explicitly prohibit Vice Presidents from presiding over proceedings to determine their own political futures, in spite of the obvious conflicts of interest, and it has happened on occasion. One of Al Gore's last official acts as Vice President was to (while presiding over the session for the ritual of tabulating the votes received from the electoral college) was to refuse to allow an objection from members of the Congressional Black Caucus (relating to whether Florida electoral votes for Bush should be counted) to be considered on its merits (Gore ruled that it could not be considered because it wasn't signed by a Senator). Had the objection been successful (which would have been unlikely, even if Gore had allowed it to be considered), then Gore would have become President. Also, Joe Lieberman was a Senator at the time and he would have become Vice President, and his signature (in spite of the again obvious conflict of interest) would have been sufficient to get the objection considered. My point is that being on trial doesn't necessarily preclude a person from presiding over the trial.47.139.43.5 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Senate Rules on impeachment, number IV, say that the Chief Justice presides over the VP's impeachment trial too, so i'm not sure why the article doesn't reflect that 108.44.53.50 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment after leaving office

According to Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush#Moving on this is possible. If so, it should be mentioned in this article. ~ Paul^T+/_C 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeaching two federal judges

It may happen, Thomas Porteous and Samuel Kent may very well be impeached this year. Kent will be sometime in the next couple of weeks and Porteous in the fall, that is if he doesn't resign first.Ericl (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment table

Hello,

I made three edits to the table. The first is about former Judge Alcee Hastings. The table had the date of removal in 1988; he was actully removed in 1989. See this NY Times article and his FJC bio: [5], [6]. The second edit was about Judge West Humphreys. The table stated his was appointed to serve in the the District of Tennessee. Actually, Judge Humphreys served in all three Tennessee Districts. See his FJC bio: [7]. The third edit has to do with dates. In reviewing the dates for Judges Nixon, Hastings, Claiborne, Ritter, Louderback, English, Archbald, and Swayne in the table, they appear to be the dates that each Judge resigned or faced their final action in the Senate. Because of this, I have changed Pres. Clinton's date from the day he was impeached (1998-12-19; see [8]) to the date of his final action before the Senate (1999-02-12; [9]). Hope all of this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You misread the table. it was the date they were IMPEACHED not REMOVED. Ericl (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Eric, since we are going on the dates each got impeached instead of the final action in the Senate, I've fixed the dates for Hastings and Nixon (see the NYT for both of these: [10] and [11]). I will have to do research on the other guys. As for Judge Humphreys, he did serve in all three Tennessee District courts, see his FJC bio. Not sure how this worked, but I guess it made sense back then. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the other guys. I have changed all the dates to the days they were impeached. I've added the dates of resignation or final action to the Result collumn. Also added have been a few more references. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Update #3. Judge Kent has decided to resign effective June 30. [12]. I've updated the table to reflect this. Also I added the date the proceedings against Judge English were dismissed (see the NYT here: [13]). Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Formal Impeachment proceedings against Mark Sanford of South Carolina begin on tuesday, and it's said that they're going to send articles to the full House in December. Also, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Sharon Keller, was impeached and there was a trial, but there wasn't a vote so where do we put it.Ericl (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming House vote on Impeachment

The U.S. House is scheduled to consider this week H.Res. 1031, a resolution impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution exhibits four articles of impeachment, to wit:

Article I - engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge (taking money from attorneys who were actively trying a case before him, refusing to disclose such information during a recusal motion, and refusing to recuse himself from the case.)

Article II - engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge (corrupt relationship with bail bonds company while a State court judge, prior to his federal service.)

Article III - knowingly and intentionally making false statements, under penalty of perjury, related to his personal bankruptcy filing and violating a bankruptcy court order.

Article IV - knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge.

The full 167-page Committee report is located here (pdf) and I will update this page with the appropriate citations and news as soon as the House votes any articles of impeachment. JasonCNJ (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"removal is automatic"

This article, and the US section of the main impeachment article, both claim that upon impeachment and conviction, removal from office is automatic. I do not believe that question has ever been tried, and it does not appear to me to be the meaning of the plain language in the Constitution, which says the Senate shall have the power to fix the penalty, but that it shall not extend beyond removal from office and future disqualification.

It is possible that the stated language corresponds to the majority opinion of scholars, but there is certainly dissent on the question and it ought to be mentioned. --Trovatore (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is there dissent on the question? Can you cite any scholarly articles or information that support the view that removal is not automatic is the proper one? Without such information, all credible sources indicate that removal is automatic and to change the article to reflect differently would be undue weight to a fringe opinion. JasonCNJ (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look around see what I can find. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the direct effect of conviction removal? Or something else? Which is to say, are the stages "impeached", "convicted", "removed", or "impeached" & "convicted & removed"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Convicted" and "removed" are not separate stages, if the Senate holds a single vote on whether to (a) acquit, or (b) convict and remove. They would also not be separate stages if the Senate holds a vote with those options and the third option of "convict, but do not remove". If the Senate was to hold two votes, first one on whether to convict or acquit, and a second on whether to remove, that would be two separate stages. Because the Senate could (in theory) hold a vote with three options, including acquit, convict and remove, or convict without removing, it is possible to have a single stage process without having automatic removal. My opinion is that the word "automatic" should not appear in the article because it implies that the Senate cannot convict without removing. Even if the Senate does not convict without removing, it does have the power to convict without removing, if it wishes.47.139.43.5 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

butler?

I'm not sure about the Butler redirect. It's not explained at all and you can't even ascertain why this redirect was chosen by looking at the disambiguation page.

After doing some research, it seems like it might be a reference to Benjamin Butler's role in Andrew Johnson's impeachment, but that seems like an awfully obscure reference. Wouldn't "butler (or majordomo)" be much more likely to be what people are actually looking for when they type Butler? Or, wouldn't a redirect to Benjamin Butler be better? AgnosticAphid talk 00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Petition

It would be nice if the article would also say how many people would need to sign such a petition.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.189.129.182 (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That Old Rag, The Constitution

I was looking for a convenient place to see what the Constitution said about impeachment, and I'm shocked not to find it here. Specifically, I wondered if the House has a responsibility to impeach high crimes or merely the option and opportunity as Rand Paul seems to think. The article itself doesn't address this. Consequently I recommend inserting into this article the actual four sections of the Constitution dealing with impeachment so that issues not explicitly covered in the article are still addressable by the reader. The opposing point of view, which I emphatically don't share, would of course be that nobody considers the Constitution worth reading any more. smh Page Notes (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You’re “shocked not to find it here”? Umm, did you miss the third paragraph of the lede? The one where it describes what the Constitution says?

But per your suggestion, I think it could be a good idea to quote in this article, in the form of footnotes to references in the lede section, everything the constitution says about impeachment. It is actually very brief. I will add it, all of it, in footnotes to the lede. I found only three places in the Constitution where impeachment is mentioned: Article 1 section 2, Article 2 section 3, and Article 2 section 4. What is the fourth you refer to?

And as for your question about “responsibility” vs. “option” to impeach, you could easily read the Constitution itself and determine that it is silent on that question. --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Who was the last President whom there were no attempts to impeach?

The article says "There have been unsuccessful attempts to initiate impeachment proceedings against John Tyler, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump." There was also a successful attempt to initiate proceedings against Clinton, but he was acquitted by the Senate. The article should identify the last President (and if it is George Herbert Walker Bush, then also the last two-term President) against whom there were no attempts to initiate impeachment proceedings.47.139.43.5 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This might be feasible to do if we search the Library of Congress for impeachment bills sponsored by House members; I'm sure someone in America has wanted to impeach every single president. -- Beland (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Time Limitations

So Congress officially "impeaches" someone when a simple majority pass 'articles of impeachment'. And then these articles get passed on to the Senate, who have a trial. And conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote. But does anyone know how long the Senate has to actually have this trial? In other words, what (if anything) would compel them to have a trial if they didn't want to? (Beyond 'decorum and tradition'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcelis555 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rules for Impeachment Trials of the Senate (as of 2013-14) say in part:[14]

Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be ren-dered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.

It is possible to suspend or amend the rules, and of course it is also possible to act extralegally and ignore the rules, so the Senate might just not comply with the Constitution if enough members didn't want to. Politically, I expect it would make more sense to immediately vote to end debate and acquit if the Senate did not want the spectacle of a public trial of whatever official, and this would also reduce the chances of a lawsuit where who knows what would happen. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it all right to add trump to the impeachment list?

Excuse me,but Is it alright to add trump to the impeachment list?Because the media claims that he is about to receive a trial soon like Andrew Johnson and Clinton.Belrien12 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You raise a fair point. Part of the problem though, is the way the article itself is written, it makes it appear as though Impeachment has already happened, and failed. The article says quote "Unnumbered lines are those officials for whom an impeachment proceeding was formally instituted, but ended when (a) the Committee did not vote to recommend impeachment, (b) the Committee recommended impeachment but the vote in the full House failed, or (c) the official resigned or died before the full House vote." There is no "(d) or Proceedings are currently underway." Which should be present to at the very least clear up the issue. That, or a notation somewhere that the investigation/proceedings are currently in process, and the decision has not yet completed. Kabukikitsune (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem solved today. -- Beland (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't solved, under US law Trump is not yet impeached. Until the House vote is delivered to the Senate, the target of impeachment is not impeached. Trump should not be on this list yet, but soon should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.144.29 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

IP, you are mistaken. President Trump has been impeached by the US House. The purpose of the trial in the Senate is to determine whether he will be removed from office. The Senate plays no role in the impeachment itself. General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[Citation needed, there is no basis for this controversial claim that flies in the face of the Congressional Research Service's own conclusions] 72.185.247.207 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in criminal law. The president has in effect been indicted; neither the timing of the delivery of the indictment to nor the judgement of the Senate change the fact that he has been, and will remain, impeached. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[Argument by analogy has nothing to do with the legal status of impeachment, which is a separate process from indictments, carried out by an entirely different branch of government under entirely different circumstances. You're making this claim without evidence doesn't make it any more true.] 72.185.247.207 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC) I agree that the impeachment has been voted on in the House, but the process of delivering the indictment to the Senate has not occurred as of 8 January 2020. Hence, he has not been impeached yet. Also, the article reads that President Trump is scheduled to be tried in 2020; that is not true. Until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, the Senate can not put the trial on the calendar. It the articles are not delivered prior to the election, the Congress is changing and the whole issue becomes moot. Unless another article of impeachment is raised and voted upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengland01 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Why here it is 18 December? https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/ you should write to them to change it to 15 January 2020. 2A00:1370:812C:1791:B8EB:FA2D:F2A4:186 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad Link

I don't have the time to find another source, but just happened to click on the link for footnote 87 (West Virginia Supreme Court) and got a 404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.44.146 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Changed to original ap story. Hydromania (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

The votes in the Senate to remove him from office did not even reach a majority, let alone two-thirds: 45–55 on obstruction of justice and 50–50 on perjury, because the votes were along party lines, not because he was innocent. 139.88.243.188 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In particular, describing some-one as innocent or guilty in Wikipedia's voice in the absence of a conviction is not generally done. See the policy on Biographies of Living Persons for more detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ejusdem Generis in Construing High Crimes and Misdemeanors

In the main article, there is a long argument that impeachment can be based on political offenses. If you are going to include that long disquisition, you should also discuss ejusdem generis.

"Ejusdem generis" is "A canon of construction holding that when a general term follows a list of particular terms, the general term only applies to things similar to the particular terms. See also

Applying this to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," (the definition in the impeachable offenses in the impeachment clause), other "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" would have to be of a kind with treason and bribery. This principle should be noted in the discussion "Impeachable Offenses" in the main article. Both bribery and treason are criminal offenses, and in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort with conviction requiring two witnesses or a confession in open court. The principle was well known, by the time the Constitution was adopted.

"High crimes and Misdemeaonrs" must be read to include only offenses, of a degree of severity on a par with bribery or treason. It must be read only to include well-defined and well-known offenses. Using the principles of law used by lawyers at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the language cannot be interpreted to include political offenses or disputes. In fact, the citation to treason imports the constitutional views on treason, which are sensitive to nebulous political charges.

Hypercallipygian (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hypercallipygian: OK, that's a legal opinion which is to some degree disputed by other opinions in the article (like the idea that the House can impeach for whatever it can get a majority for). To add it to the article, it would have to be attributed to a specific legal expert or commentator or group. If you have a reference to such an opinion, and perhaps some proposed text for the article, that would help speed any expansion on this point. -- Beland (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term "two-thirds majority" is improper

The use of the term "two-thirds majority" is potentially confusing. Majority means more than half. It has a specific meaning. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised(11th edition) discusses "majority vote" and "two-thirds vote" on pg 4. Saying "two-thirds majority" is not proper usage of the terms. It would be more proper to edit all occurrences of the term "two-thirds majority" and replacing it with "two-thirds super majority" which is used earlier in this article. Besides being more proper usage, it also creates greater consistency in the article.(Apologies on my citation. The book's first named author has a suffix of III. I was not sure where to put that. Also it has multiple authors. Be gentle. DanielEHayesLP (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6: "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 use of the word "present" in this clause is not accidental or incidental. "Two-thirds of members present" means one thing and one thing only: two-thirds of the quorum present at the time of the vote. Conviction in the Senate does not require 67 votes if there are members absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8580:2BE0:CCC3:FCDD:31B4:6807 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed all instances of "two-thirds majority" to "two-thirds supermajority". -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pardon after impeachment

The article contains the following claim:

The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting Federal criminal case.

This claim is followed by a citation to an essay, "Punishment for Impeachment", in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. But that essay doesn't mention the pardon power at all. Nor does the essay on the pardon power mention anything about a trial after impeachment, only reiterating that a pardon "cannot affect an impeachment process". -- Perey (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Biased reporting on the Trump impeachment

It would be better if our reporting on the Trump impeachment was less opinionated to avoid edit wars.

As of now the article states that the impeachment was passed with a "small partisan majority". Can't we let the reader decide if they think the majority is small or not, and just report the numbers? Compared to the Clinton impeachment there was actually a bigger majority for the Trump impeachment.

The article also states that this is "the first presidential House impeachment in which a law was not clearly broken". That's not a neutral statement, what's clear to one person is unclear for another. Isn't the point of the impeachment to determine if a law was broken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tictoctictoc (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment does not require that a law be broken. Gerald Ford famously said that an impeachable offense was whatever 218 House members think one is. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

True, but a larger issue at the present moment (12/20/19) is the Speaker of the House is essentially attempting to dictate the rules under which the Senate will hold the trial, with refusal to comply meaning the House will not bother to send the House Managers carrying the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and have them represent the prosecution at the Senate trial. However, by the constitution, the Speaker of the House does not and cannot have the power to dictate procedural and trial rules to the Senate. More, by House rules, it's arguable she may not even have the right to refuse to send the House Managers, their duties are traditionally more-or-less independent. 174.28.237.24 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

In the discussion regarding the Impeachment of President Donald Trump: (1) Add the country name "Ukraine" and (2) Add a hyperlink on the text Joe Biden to Joe Biden's wiki page. Rjc33558 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarify if the Articles and Managers must go to the Senate and in what time frame

Currently, the Speaker of the House apparently does not intend to immediately proceed with the transfer of the process to the Senate. Could she let the election intervene? What is the historical record for the duration of the transfer on federal impeachments? Can she do something like stop the process with a censure resolution? This should be in the article. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

How can we clarify what is quite muddy? The matter is currently in a flux. It appears to me that Pelosi is now ignoring all precedent and tradition, as indeed these Articles of Impeachment do (given the trivialness of the charges). The Constitution says nothing about the Speaker controlling the delivery of an impeachment document, not anything even about a document. So I suppose that the Senate will make its own impeachment trial rules & declare that the fact of a vote & its record constitutes an impeachment regardless of any document delivery. And then I expect the Senate to go forward with a trial or preparations for a trial, like making a new Irwin Committee as the Senate did with Nixon, even before a vote to impeach (which never came).

As to censure of a president, has anybody ever found such a thing in the constitution? Can a single house pass a resolution without having the other house also vote for it, & it go to the president for his signature? And what if the president censures the House?(PeacePeace (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

The average calendar time between the end of federal impeachment processes in the House and their beginning in the Senate is a simple tabulation, the arithmetic mean of day or hour counts and a flat fact, not even a parametric statistic requiring Calculus, which I'm guessing you skipped. Buck is off the rails with the weight of 63 million deplorables behind him as the latest comments attest. In the long run I'll put my money on smart over aggrieved and entitled, hold on to "your country" while you can, it can only make the final triumph over trump and what he stands for that much sweeter and complete. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that simple tabulation you speak of reveals that the time frame involved is pretty much the time required to walk from the House floor to the Senate floor - minutes, no longer than that. The fact that this is not happening raises some very interesting questions about the whole affair. 174.28.237.24 (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In the reality Buck has created for his minions perhaps. Tabulation of the data however shows that the average time is 113 days, the least 1, the most 528 days. So in fact the articles have never been as you say walked from the one body to the other on the same day. In fact the process has only resumed the next day in the Senate twice and within 5 days that many times out of 18. Removing those 5 and the two that took more than a year, the average is 96 days. Lycurgus (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Where Does Constitution say House impeaches by majority vote?

It is common knowledge that the House impeaches by a simple majority vote. However, I can't find that in the Constitution. So does the claim in this article require a reliable source? Article says:

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

What is the source for this claim? Should it be deleted from the article until a couple of reliable sources are found? Moreover, what is the source for "those present and voting" as opposed to majority of the representatives? The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment, but does not define what constitutes the power, as it might by saying a majority of those present and voting constitutes the power. Perhaps the House itself has declared these matters in some resolutions? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

You're right there's no text that explicitly states what kind of majority is required in the House for impeachment to pass. There doesn't need to be because there's a thing called default logic which codifies what reasonable people think and without which people would be utterly unable to operate. With no special kind of majority specified, the default is a simple majority the general specification for all legislation in both bodies unless otherwise stipulated. Where there is a need for a supermajority it is specified as the constitution does for the trial in the Senate. Both bodies, subject to the governing law of the constitution, set their own rules and SFAIK, it's uniformly the case that legislation in the House only requires a simple majority. So the same rules apply, a fortiori, to impeachment since the specification of something special for impeachment would likely be deemed unconstitutional. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Continuous growth of "Impeachable Offenses" section

It seems like there is historical revisionism going on. Going back only one year and the impeachable offenses section did not exist. Notably there is the recent statement of fact insertion of:

• The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.

This hasn't been in the article until the recent political climate. Can someone confirm the accuracy of this? In fact the term "impeachable offenses" did not exist on this page until some time in the last year. 104.219.106.89 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

For example see the page state as of February of last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_in_the_United_States&oldid=828169802 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.106.89 (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

The status of Donald Trumps impeachment needs to be change it incorrectly lists the status as "Impeached on December 18, 2019 after an inquiry by the Financial Services, Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means committees" As per the united states constitution as brought forward by the democrats own legal scholars a president is not impeached until the articles of impeachment have been transmitted to the Senate as impeachment is a process and not just the vote at the end. They still have the ability to revote and make adjustments and until it is transmitted is not considered an impeachment. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats Keleusx (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is actually debatable as I understand it. It would be like saying you haven't technically finished dinner because you haven't taken your plate to the dishwasher. In addition, every reliable source has reported that Trump is impeached. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a valid comparison. If you had a scrap of food on your plate still even after you said you were done you could eat that scrap and then you would invalidate your initial claim of "Being finished with dinner" which is why this should not be posted as a permanent status as impeached. Being that the articles are still in the house changes and a revote could still be made invalidating the previous date of impeachment. Reliable sources have not disproved this. Being that it came from one of the witnesses during the impeachment hearings who is a Harvard Law professor I would say this is above any media sources. Unless a reliable source has said that this is not law then This law professor who was directly involved and has made it their career to know this and is clearly unbiased being on the opposition of Trump should be trusted. Until otherwise proven this should be removed to avoid showing Bias on a wiki. Keleusx (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the analogy, but it doesn't matter. We summarize what reliable sources state; that is the mission of Wikipedia, so what they say does matter. It may be valid content to report any reliable sources that discuss disagreement with this, giving it proper weight. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, since the House has the sole power of impeachment according to the Constitution, they get to determine what that means, and they say they have impeached Trump. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source has been given, A direct link to a article written by one of the Democrat proposed witnesses for the impeachment hearings who is a Harvard Law professor has been provided. Continuing to report impeachment as a fact given new sources is misleading and against the mission of wikipedia. The house has sole power to impeach they do not have the ability to define what impeachment means unless the constitution is amended. As already mentioned this Law professor who is a constitutional expert has shown impeachment 'as currently written' has not been completed The papers say "has been impeached" but they have said that for weeks, the phrase does not go into legal effect until the impeachment process as written in the constitution is completed. Keleusx (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please show a source that said "weeks ago" that Trump was impeached, which would be impossible since the vote was Wednesday. Going to be or expected to be is one thing, but claiming actual impeachment is different. Case law in this area disagrees with you, see Nixon v. United States- a case where a judge convicted in an impeachment trial tried to argue the trial was not valid and lost, because the courts determined they could not rule on the matter since the Senate has the "sole power" to try impeachments. The same would likely be argued in this case if the impeachment was challenged. You've only offered one source with one opinion. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The case law you have sourced is irrelevant being that in that situation it had made it to the senate therefore completing the impeachment process as has already been discussed. The drafts for the articles have contained and I quote " Donald J. John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:" this does not mean that the day that draft was written Donald Trump was impeached, the articles only become legal once the impeachment process has been completed. This is written in the constitution and can not be overridden by just stating so in a press conference. Ive only offered one source because it is a direct source from not only a hearing participant but a constitutional scholar, unless you can provide a source disputing this, then continued trusting of previous sources and posting their belief as undisputed fact is no longer valid. Keleusx (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not written into the Constitution, it is the interpretation of one person who has read the Constitution. The case law is not irrelevant, it is called precedent which judges are supposed to respect(even the judges Trump and McConnell are ramming through). If the Senate has the sole power to determine how to conduct an impeachment trial, the House has the sole power to determine how to and when a president is impeached. In any event, the fact remains that reliable sources disagree with your claims as the headline of every newspaper in the US was some variation of "Trump impeached". 331dot (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The case law is definitely irrelevant as precedence only applies to future cases that are the same. Since these articles have not gone to the senate like in the case law you mentioned it is impossible for the precedence to be used there. Once again the house does have sole power to impeach but they can not go against what the constitution classifies as the impeachment itself. They can just enact the impeachment not decide its meaning unless they amend the constitution. Your last statement is also false, No fact remains. Not a single reliable source has been given disputing this new interpretation that the impeachment process is not complete until sent to the senate. Headlines of newspapers are hardly solid fact and in any regard no headlines have been put out disputing this source. The current status of impeachment is disputed, posting it as stated fact on the wiki is false, at the very least its disputed status needs to be mentioned to avoid bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keleusx (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Re "precedence only applies to future cases that are the same", that is absolutely false. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Loving v. Virginia was cited as precedent in Obergfell v. Hodges; the former dealt with interracial marriage, not gay marriage. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a valid example at all. Its clear you read my response too literally "same" did not mean it had to be the same exact case. The cases you mentioned were both cases that involved determining the governments right in deciding who has a fundamental right of marriage. There are two reasons the precedence set in Nixon v. United States- does not apply 1.The fact that he was impeached was not disputed only the trial for removal from office. Had that have been overturned he still would have been considered impeached, just not removed from office. Making this not even remotely the same kind of case. 2. This cases precedence mainly applies to the Judicial branches ability to intercede in impeachment. Nothing to do with what is being discussed. What is being discussed is that the impeachment is not yet legally completed as it has not completed the final step which is transmission to the senate. At the very least it needs to be stated that this status of "Impeached" is disputed as no reliable sources have been given disputing this newly mentioned interpretation. Keleusx (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree and aren't going to agree, so I will leave this for others to weigh in on. By the way, there is no other way to read text communications other than literally, so it is important to communicate exactly what it is that you want to communicate with text. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your original research and preference for a single source that agrees with you over the vast majority of reliable sources which say otherwise is not a good basis for encyclopedic content. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to say President Trump has been impeached if the democrats refuse, as they say they will, to actually send the impeachment to the Senate. Voting for something is one thing, actually doing it might be another. I don't expect to find precedent because who would fight so urgently for impeachment and then not actually complete the paperwork and send it to the Senate. I think everyone paying attention understood that the Senate is not going to convict, but if you never file the charges are you not admitting you have no case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.68.169 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is accurate to say that, and please read WP:NOR. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This op-ed by Professor Jonathan Turley, published in the Washington Post today, should help put this question to rest: I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen. General Ization ^Talk 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

"Procedure" Section's claim as to when impeachment has occurred mistates/ignores the actual citation from RS

Under Bulletpoint two: "Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

There is no citation for this assertion. If one goes to the citation that was cited for the entire "Procedure" section, you will find that the Congressional Research Service spells out four procedural steps the House must follow for impeachment to occur:

• Initiation
• Investigation
• House Action Subsequent to Receipt of Committee Report
• Notification by the House and Senate Response

None of these sections state or suggest that merely voting for articles of impeachment (the third step) legally constitute "impeachment", as the 2nd bulletpoint claims without evidence. In fact, in the fourth step "Notification by the House and Senate Response" undercuts the 2nd bulletpoint's unsupported claim with the words: "Subsequently, the appointed managers will appear before the bar of the Senate to impeach the individual involved and exhibit the articles against him or her".

i.e: The plain reading of the text by the Congressional Research Service implies that the individual is not yet impeached until the House managers appear before the bar of the Senate and present the articles of impeachment to them for trial. (Which fits in with the whole processes' emphasis on the due process that is afforded to the individual.)

72.185.247.207 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: Merge. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge the article Articles of impeachment into the article Impeachment in the United States. I think the content in the Articles of impeachment article could be easily explained in the context of Impeachment in the United States, and that the Articles of impeachment article is small enough to not cause problems when it comes to size to Impeachment in the United States. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a merge is a good idea. A brief section explaining articles of impeachment (from Articles of impeachment) fits in this article, whereas the stand-alone article isn't much more than a stub. Interestingly, this article mentions "articles of impeachment" numerous times but never wikilinks to Articles of impeachment. Schazjmd (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The "articles of" article (no pun intended) accomplishes nothing that couldn't be accomplished by incorporating it into the general article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. I was actually considering putting the Articles of Impeachment article up for deletion, before I realized it would be better off merged in this article. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So, have we reached a consensus? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The recommendation is to wait about a week or as long as discussion continues. Many editors do not edit every day, so it is only fair to give a reasonable length of time to test whether there are opposing views. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

All right then. The discussion will continue. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the merge proposal should be closed by someone who is not involved in the discussion, and can make an independent assessment of any consensus. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is very clear consensus, discussion has ceased and at least a week has elapsed, then any user can close a merge proposal. A neutral editor is only required if consensus is not clear. see WP:MERGECLOSE. "During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merger. Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Admins are not needed." -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for letting us know. This is my first merge. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Merge - Unless this article was to talk about how Articles of Impeachment are drawn up and written or something? But than, Id see that as being sufficient to be placed in the Impeachment in the United States page. Essentially, this article is redundant, not just very small. And agreed, wait till there has been a week minimum that has elapsed for a chance others to have a say. Happy editing! :D SageSolomon (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I think that discussion has been open for a week, discussion has ceased and there are no opposing views. I think that we have reached a consensus to merge. Do we all agree? Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you're good to proceed with the merge. Schazjmd (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

All right. This discussion will be closed and I will proceed with the merge. Please note that the new section might not be up to standard. I'll try with the copy and pasting, but I just wanted to let you know. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merged Material

Now that User:Minecrafter0271 has completed the merge from Articles of Impeachment, I had a first stab at re-arranging the material to make it more seamless with the article. I think we should keep the section heading "Articles of Impeachment" as this is where a redirect will take readers, and it is a search term they may look for directly. I moved some existing text down under that heading, where it fits better.

I removed the pre-amble from the other page as it duplicates what is already here. The rest of the material, I moved up in the article close to the lead. I was not sure about whether it should sit in the lead or where I have it as initial explanation. Also, if there is duplication, it can now be weeded out. The merge process preserves all the revision history, so if other editors feel it is just duplicating what is already said, it can go. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know where to put it. Maybe it deserves a section of its own. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

are impeachment managers under any type of oath?

Or can they just say anything? Jimb15122 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Did you miss the oath? 2A00:1370:812C:1791:B8EB:FA2D:F2A4:186 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! This talk page isn't a discussion about the topic, but rather discussion on how to improve the article. I don't see how this question relates to that. If you could explain, then that would be great. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ricardo Rossello (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote to add information about the articles of impeachment drawn up on Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.

Here is the wikipedia article for the Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. Not sure if this is viable to add to this article. Vote? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Those articles were a political stunt that weren't even voted on, let alone voted down. This article seems to only mention successful impeachments or people who resigned in the face of likely impeachment(Greitens). I don't think this even warrants a mention here. I'm not even certain it merits an article, but it at least has news coverage. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment is a political process, it is misrepresentative to limit the discussion to only completed impeachments. Police officers carry guns and the most profound effect they have is as a deterrent without ever being used. And when they do draw the weapon, it most often does not need to be fired to do its job correctly. If a legislature draws up and votes on articles of impeachment, that is not nothing. It is a statement - a censure of a sort. The legislature has drawn its weapon out of its holster to bring a politician into line.

Add the content. I disagree with painting a narrative that impeachment is only valuable when the vote passes and a trial convicts. As a tool it has a much broader use than this. It could be argued that the trial itself may not even belong in this article as "impeachment" in the legal context is strictly the operation in the House of Representatives.

1. There are few people removed from office via impeachment.
2. There are more people who are impeached yet not convicted
3. There are more people still who have had articles of impeachment drawn but failed the vote in the House.

The process adds strength to the goal of remediating the office at each step, and decisions are made at each step. Impeachment hearings are required to be publicly held with open doors and all discussion open to the public. Unlike trial, there is no such thing as a confidential impeachment. This is not an accident, the whole thing exists for the public. In the end the tool is designed to send a message to the people about a problem in their government, and it may or may not end with a vacancy. Killing is not the only reason police have guns, and vacating a position is not the only reason the legislature has impeachment.

"United States presidential impeachment" redirect

Hi folks, I noticed that the phrase "United States presidential impeachment" (which was coming up as a Google search result for me) redirects to this page, specifically the "Federal impeachment" section. But WP does have an separate article for Impeachments of presidents of the United States. It seems to me that the redirect should go to that article instead. I just wanted to check with others before I do that - should I go ahead and change it? GranChi (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That second article is WAY better overall and includes the information we had discussed in the last two sections above (more concisely and it's much more straightforward and less confusing). I think this article and the current impeachment ones should redirect to it. It's actually exactly what I was looking for, but the article on the current event led me here instead of there. Thank you for posting it. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

James Buchanan / Andrew Johnson - suggestion to add to other sections with more explanation

Both highlighted. Need more mentioning ln the article itself. Maybe added to and more explanation under "Other impeachment attempts" section, and mentioned alongside Nixon in text section of "List of formal impeachments" (before the table). As it stands, just having them in the table is somewhat confusing. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That does make sense given the relative importance of these proceedings, though I'm not convinced that Buchanan should be included in the table at all. Doing so seems to place the Covode Committee on the same level as the impeachment proceedings against other presidents. Though I'm not an expert, it seems that the committee was formed to investigate corruption with the potential of leading to impeachment proceedings in the future, rather than serving as the start of a formal impeachment process. The description of the table says it lists "officials for whom impeachment proceedings were instituted," but is this really true in Buchanan's case? Puhala,ny (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:GranChi posted a link a couple of sections down to a much better article that has a lot of this information in it laid out in a much better way - Impeachments of presidents of the United States. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Over-quotation

I added the Over-quotation tag today. This article has some issues with clarity. The main ideas are kind drowned out by a lot of noise, and one of the reasons for this is an excessive use of quotations. If there's consensus, I would certainly support paraphrasing or trimming many of these quotations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless you mean the Constitution quotes at the beginning of the article, I don't see a problem with quotations. There are only 2 block quotes and one in-line sentence from England. Rmhermen (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rmhermen, I think the constitution text should stay, that looks fine. Please take another look, and consider adding the Over-quotation tag back. There is tons of text in this article that is in quotations. For example, all the longer passages highlighted by this tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought about this more. There's one section in particular that's over-quoted. I'll just tag that for now. Although I still think a strong argument could be made for {{over quotation}} and possibly a {{confusing}} for the entire article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about recent edits

Editors who are more active on this page than I am might like to take a careful look at the recent edits by the almost single-purpose 'new' editor Frobozz1. That editor's changes to the Impeachment article are under discussion over there, and some of the concerns appear very relevant to edits made here as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to improve articles with well-sourced references, and to edit with improvement in mind. There are more tools available than rollback and delete. Please consider, if you feel a citation is low quality, there is a tag for that. If a statement may be an opinion, there is a tag for that. If a statement does not agree with your personal beliefs, there is no tag for that. User warnings and bullying are not a suitable alternative.

Use the tools Wikipedia has provided, along with this talk feature, to increase rather than decrease the quality of articles.

Your assistance would be appreciated. Thank you.

Frobozz1 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Who can be impeached" section may be inaccurate

The first paragraph currently reads: "The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a "civil officer of the United States"." It does not include a citation to an authority on this, and the first sentence is arguably incorrect.

Specifically, Congress' powers to impeach are included in Article 1, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The partial quotation in the first paragraph of the article is actually from Article 2, section 4, which reads in full: "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." In other words, this section states that removal from office is a Constitutional requirement upon impeachment and conviction of the President, Veep, or other civil Officers, but does not say anything about impeachment solely being confined to that group.

Additionally, impeachment in the US comes from common law in the UK, where (as noted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_Kingdom) impeachment can apply to anyone for any crime. Without any explicit US case precedent, statute, or Constitutional provision to the contrary, it is likely that a court (most likely SCOTUS) would interpret impeachment in the same way.

This isn't a trivial distinction and is relevant due to the recent discussion over whether the President can pardon anyone for any crime, without exception... The Constitution limits pardons "in cases of Impeachment" (Article 2, section 2), which means that Congress' power to impeach would serve as a check on that pardon power (provided the majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate agree).

At an absolute minimum, the paragraph should be changed to say: "The Constitution does not explicitly limit who may be impeached, and says only that '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.' The Constitution also does not articulate who qualifies as a 'civil officer of the United States'." Danrose909 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This statement appears to be inaccurate also: "The constitutional text is silent on whether an officer can be tried after the officer resigns or his/her term ends." Actually it says "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and [and!] disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office..." It doesn’t say removal from office “OR” disqualification to hold office. “AND” seems to imply that the judgment was intended for persons still in office. 2600:1702:20E0:E1B0:6C0C:B356:93C9:9642 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Constitution is vague about what "Officer of the United States" means, but has generally been interpreted to include all members of the Executive and Judicial branches appointed to their posts and subject to Senate confirmation. While it is fairly clear it does not extend to normal federal employees, it's unclear to what extent it extends to non-senate confirmable positions. The use of the "civil" qualifier implies impeachment is not to be used for military officers.

As a practical matter though, the House can impeach anybody it wants, and the Senate can choose to disqualify them from office, provided the two-thirds threshold is reached. The Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it, as it ruled in Nixon v. United States that impeachment and impeachment trials are political questions left solely to their discretion, given the Constitution's phrasing of "sole power". I believe the Senate has discretion about whether to hold impeachment trials (it has the power to try an impeachment, but is not Constitutionally obligated to hold one, though is under current Senate rules) and can also dismiss impeachment cases by majority vote, as it has done in several instances. The House even tried to impeach Senator William Blount who is probably not an "Officer of the United States" as a member of Congress, and the Senate rejected the impeachment and did not hold a trial (but expelled him, also with a two-thirds vote).

The current debate is in regard to what extent it implies to former Officers, which is a gray area. Here I agree saying the Constitution is silent is misleading. In the current case, I think it's important that Trump was impeached while still in office, and the Senate holds its power to "try all impeachments". There is also the precedent of William Belknap who was impeached just after his resignation, and tried in the Senate in the following months. I agree the Framers likely envisioned impeachment of those still in office, but there are cogent arguments that support the idea that an impeachment trial after an official is no longer in office is Constitutionally appropriate. One argument is that with the phrasing "shall not extend further..." the Constitution sets an upper bar to punishment, but not a lower bar, and the disqualification Judgement can still be rendered to former officers. (See some of the sources at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.) In the Clinton impeachment trial, some senators wanted to separate their vote to convict from the punishment, believing he was Guilty but should not be removed from office, and some argue separate votes are what the Constitution envisions.

So, I would support elaboration on these issues based on reliable sources, as it is irrelevant for the article what any of us believe. I agree the statement that the Constitution is silent about impeachment trials for former officers should be changed, but do not support the statement that the Constitution does not expressly limit who may be impeached, as it pretty clearly defines who is subject to impeachment, even though it may not politically limit who may be impeached. If reliable sources (e.g. opinions by legal scholars in appropriate venues) have addressed the issue, they may be discussed. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to try to remember the Constitution is a legal document and it is dangerous to haphazardly inject our own plain-language interpretations of terms of art. into Wikipedia articles, the language was designed to be interpreted by courts using Statutory interpretation. Anything in it that looks confusing is because we are 250 years away from it, not because they used vague language. They used terms of art like "High crimes and misdemeanors," which everyone understood the meaning of perfectly, yet today we assume it implies some violation of a law because we see the word "crime" in it. It does not mean a law was broken. Likewise, the word "Officer" is used extremely precisely in the Constitution: Someone charged with performing by a higher power (the President or the Constitution).

Officer (with a capital 'O') was a very specific word. It means sovereignty (someone has power over you with or without your permission). "Under the United States," "Under the Crown," "Under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" are also terms of art in law that had a very specific meaning when a court read it 250 years ago. Our articles would be wise to prefer court interpretations of words: stay within the art of the document, stay within the time period of the document, and prefer interpretation made by judges who specialize in that art of statutory interpretation. Officer of the United States is a very precisely defined term of art, let's try to be careful not to equivocate our own interpretations into long-standing definitions.

Saying the Constitution is silent is disingenuous; adjectives do matter. They form these specific terms of art. E.g., higher enlisted members in the military, for example, are "non-commissioned officers" (NCO's) in common jargon, but they are not officers; those first adjectives mean a lot. An officer under United States law is always someone who is appointed, they will always have a commission from the president, or the Constitution. An Office is always the station of an appointed person. An elected person is a public trust, because literally, they only have their power because we trust them (we voted for them), and we take that power away when we don't trust them (we vote for someone better). This is clear in the Article VI No Religious Test Clause. It prohibits applying a "religious test" to any "office" under the United States, or any "trust" under the United States; if they did not include the word "trust," then we would be allowed to write laws that create an entirely Muslim, Hindu, or atheist Senate; or we could legally make all Representatives take an oath "by the power of Zeus" if we wanted. But Representatives do not hold office, so the word "trust" had to be in there. Congress only has power because we elected them, and we can take it away. Officers have power because the President gave it to them, and we can't take it away. So, we have impeachment. Impeachment is the failsafe given to us against the President's men, as well as himself and the Vice President (who are not civil officers). If we look in a dictionary for the words "civil" and "officer" and ignore the fact that this is a legal document in our edits, we are just as guilty of original content as the person who edits "ground hog" by defining it as a pig who lives in the ground.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

William Blount impeachment dates

Many sources support the July 7, 1797 date of impeachment, but then report that 5 articles of impeachment were approved in January, 1798. So was he not officially impeached until January 1798? Was there an "article of impeachment" that was approved in July, with additional articles approved the following January, or were there no articles associated with the original impeachment vote in July? Given this was the first impeachment, I think what happened is that formal articles of impeachment weren't originally approved in July, there was just a resolution that he be impeached, and the impeachment wasn't yet sent to the Senate, whereas in modern times the vote of the full house to approve an article or articles of impeachment would constitute the impeachment, and prior votes would be to proceed to an impeachment investigation or inquiry. In any case, I think this needs to be clarified with more citations added. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with awkward grammar in Referendum of Guam

I am at a loss to properly and concisely state the removal process in Guam by impeachment then referendum. The legislature passes a 2/3 vote exactly identical to an impeachment though they do not use that word, and the removal is then affected by the electorate by referendum. Any help making this concise is appreciated.

I wrote: "but provides for the removal of any Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or member of the Legislature by a majority vote from referendum 2/3 of the last participating electorate."

The actual text of 48 U.S.C. § 1422a(b) is as follows:

§1422a. Removal of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or member of legislature; referendum election

(a) The people of Guam shall have the right of initiative and referendum, to be exercised under conditions and procedures specified in the laws of Guam.

(b) Any Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or member of the legislature of Guam may be removed from office by a referendum election in which at least two-thirds of the number of persons voting for such official in the last preceding general election at which such official was elected vote in favor of recall and in which those so voting constitute a majority of all those participating in such referendum election. The referendum election shall be initiated by the legislature of Guam following (a) a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislature in favor of a referendum, or (b) petition for such a referendum to the legislature by registered voters equal in number to at least 50 per centum of the whole number of votes cast at the last general election at which such official was elected preceding the filing of the petition.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

-- 47.196.197.231 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I do think the language is awkward. Are there any suggestions here? --47.196.197.231 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment proceedings table

Following up on a reply I made in an earlier post, I feel that the table in this article suffers from inconsistency. The table is described as including "officials for whom impeachment proceedings were instituted and referred to a committee of the House of Representatives." My previous comment regarded whether or not this applies to James Buchanan, who is in the table, but I'm not sure should be. Additionally, by this definition, there are other presidents who should be included but aren't, such as Lyndon B. Johnson (source: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/03/88941707.html?pageNumber=20) and George W. Bush. Obviously, the point of the table isn't to list every official for whom impeachment proceedings died in committee, which is why I feel that the criteria for inclusion should be altered. Puhala,ny (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "List of formal impeachments" yesterday, without having seen your comment. There are many ways we could handle this, including

• Option 1 - delete people that weren't formally impeached
• Option 2 - expand the table to include everybody
• Option 3 - create a new section for people that were investigated but not impeached
• Option 4 - leave as is

I'm leaning toward Option 1. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

- I vote Option 3 or Option 1 but only if we also create a new article/section/subpage for people that were investigated but not impeached. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:GranChi posted a link in the section below to a much better article that has a lot of this information in it laid out in a much better way - Impeachments of presidents of the United States. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did option 3 for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I vote Option 1. Given that the other article goes into more detail and is already linked, a cursory mention of Buchanan, Nixon, etc. is all that I feel is needed in this article. Puhala,ny (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I linked it earlier, the other article has better info imo. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote Option 2 to avoid oversimplifying a complicated political process. President Nixon was not impeached yet it is almost unanimously held that impeachment is what caused him to leave office. Both political parties told him they would vote unanimously to impeach, and so he resigned, and the tool worked. If a police officer draws a gun and the suspect surrenders, the intimidation factor of the gun absolutely belongs in an article about police use of force, we can measure the positive effect an unfired police gun has on the community.

--47.196.197.231 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Senate's Obligation?

Is the Senate actually obliged to try an individual impeached by the House of Representatives? Looking at the table, it seems like they always have. Reading the Constitution, it seems like it's completely at the Senate's discretion. Anyone know for sure?

71.226.227.121 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Under the current rules, the Senate is indeed required to do so. See footnote 26: Rules of Procedure (...) 97.123.105.105 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Senate is required to do so according to the rules which they themselves have made, however to be perfectly clear, impeachment is a purely political process which the Constitution gives complete authority to the political bodies: the sole power of impeachment to the House, and the sole power of trial to the Senate. So the question of, "is it required" needs to be asked correctly; "are there any consequences if they do not try an impeachment?" The constitutional answer to that question is clearly no, there are no constitutional consequences if the Senate chooses not to try an impeachment. This is because political seats are not held accountable to the law, they are held accountable to the people. If the Senate chooses not to try an impeached official, the next election will surely punish them accordingly. For some reason the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the people is escaping this article and impeachment is being treated like a legal process governed by rigid rules. The Constitution does not enshrine rules which would encroach upon the right of the people to choose their own leaders as they may, which is the foundational defining principle of a Republic.
It would be nice if we could step back from legalistic language like "obligation" in functions which are purely political in their operation. The impeachment was clearly designed to be run in whatever manner the Congress sees appropriate, and the electorate holds them accountable if they run it badly. This is what the words "sole power" mean. No court is allowed to judge their handling of matters. --47.196.197.231 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Then the question was asked correctly, and the simple answer is NO, the Senate is under no legal obligation to actually hold a trial for an individual impeached by the House. This article doesn't clarify that directly, and a lot of misinformation had been flying around in the press that the Senate MUST try the impeached in some fashion. Wikipedia should concern itself with facts, not PoliSci ramblings. Your response was needlessly long-winded and missed the point of the question. 71.226.227.121 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Eliminating pardon powers of the President via disqualification

It was interesting to learn from the Belknap hearings why the disqualification clause was necessary, I feel it belongs in the article. A President creates officers via the Appointments Clause, and the Legislature can impeach them. Obviously, the President can ignore Congress and re-install an officer, who the Congress will have to impeach again, etc., etc. They obviously didn't want the President's pardon power to nullify the legislature's impeachment power, the Constitution specifically says as much.

The quote from Senator Matthew Carpenter was very enlightening. I suggest we include it into the "disqualification" section of the article. This snippet was recently deleted and should be returned.

Because all officers of the United states are appointed by the President, and are either directly or indirectly confirmed with advice and consent of the Senate, impeachment needed some mechanism to prevent an especially problematic officer from being appointed again by the President immediately after the difficult work of impeachment. Wisconsin senator Matthew H. Carpenter explained the purpose of the disqualification clause while he was defending the late Secretary of War William W. Belknap against impeachment,

“ The disqualification clause of punishment (sic) was evidently put in for the purpose of making the power of removal by impeachment effectual. After providing that the officers of the United States might be removed on impeachment, although the President could not pardon the offender convicted and removed, yet if he could re-instate him the next morning he would have substantially the power of pardon. To prevent this was the object of the disqualifying clause; which [Chief Justice Joseph] Story says is not a necessary part of the judgment. ” — Matthew H. Carpenter

--47.196.197.231 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

No. "Officer of the United States" (for appointments clause) and "civil officer" (for impeachment) are not necessarily the same. In statutes, we presume that the same word used by Congress in the same enactment has the same meaning. Not so in the Constitution. For example, "property" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment Takings clause is different than "property" for Due Process. In the case of "officer," you can't infer one from the other. BostonBowTie (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Correcting an error in "Removal and disqualification" introduced March 3, 2021

In this edit [15] of March 3, 2021, this text was added:

According to the U.S. House of Representatives Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, an impeachment would have no effect if the President could simply pardon or reinstate his officers after the Senate removed them. Thus the Constitution disallows the President from pardoning impeachment convictions, and further permanently disqualifies any convicted person from "holding or enjoying" any future office under the United States according to the textual language. This latter clause prevents the President's Article II appointment power from being used as a de-facto pardon. This is a more harsh judgement than other constitutions. The framers at the Pennsylvania constitution convention felt that the Senate, upon conviction, should have the discretion to remove an officer without disqualification; and accordingly they changed the provision which had previously been copied directly from the Constitution of the United States, modified it such that it says judgement shall extend to removal, or to removal and disqualification. The effect of that was to allow of a judgment of removal alone, or removal and disqualification without binding the judgements. Regardless of the rigid language used, the Senate has sole power to try impeachments and in practice they have only ever bound three judicial officers to disqualification after impeachment. The impeachment results are recorded and sent to the Secretary of State.\

Of course we all know that this is objectively false—conviction/removal and disqualification are two different things. They require two separate votes. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote, disqualification only requires a majority.

The erroneous text cites Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 63 - Nature of Impeachment: Accused may be tried after resignation, § 2007". www.govinfo.gov. Retrieved March 3, 2021. But the cite is inaccurate. This portion of the Hinds article is a transcript of arguments of counsel in the 1876 trial of Secretary William Belknap. But a lawyer’s argument--an argument that was voted against by a majority of the Senate--doesn’t make it so!

The cited text is just a lawyer’s argument, not the conclusion of the cited source. I will assemble a text, and fully footnote it. BostonBowTie (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

BostonBowTie, sounds good to me. Speaking candidly, this editor did a series of edits that did damage to this article, by inserting non-mainstream legal arguments cited to sources. Because it's cited to sources, that kind of thing is difficult to fix around here, and sometimes takes a subject matter expert, so it is good to see those edits getting repaired. If it's easier than rewriting from scratch, reverting individual paragraphs to old text is also an option. Impeachment and Second impeachment of Donald Trump may also need our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please click here to see screenshots of the edits of the editor I am concerned with. I would encourage us to take a look and spot check them. I am worried that they may be similar to what BostonBowTie fixed above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae and BostonBowTie: The concerns here seem legitimate enough that I preferred to employ the WP:TNT treatment (here and at Officer of the United States), even if it is probably excessive. We can do a spot check without the edits being presented as fact to our readers. Sorry if it's a bit too much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae Thank you for trying. I wrote you a longer thank you, but some joker decided to delete it. RandomCanadian This is the last straw of crazy. I've asked to have my account vanished. The only thing I have to offer is subject matter knowledge and expertise. When they're deprecated, it's time to leave. It's just not worth trying any more. Over and out. BostonBowTie (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: I was only trying to help by removing the previous contributions of Frobozz1, since they seemed to be the one that added all the problematic stuff... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I think BostonBowTie might be referring to something that happened earlier. Might be unrelated to your edit. I think his vanish request was submitted before your edit. BostonBowTie, I'm sorry to see you go my friend. I think the editors here expected you to be a little more flexible and willing to respond to requests to follow certain guidelines. I didn't see much of an attempt to meet them half way. Everybody doubled down, and now things ended up tense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)