& A ; Johnson Essay, Research Paper
The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in order to earn support for the shortly to be Constitution of the United States. In 65, Hamilton discusses the powers of the senate in relation to the impeachment procedure. The Senate is designated as sufficiently dignified and sufficiently independent since it is able to stay unawed and unswayed, and hence, able to continue the nonpartisanship between accused and accuser/s. Yet in the impeachment tests of both Presidents Johnson and Clinton, the Senate proved to be anything but uninfluenced as political relations came into drama during both instances.
During his reintegration of the South into the brotherhood, Johnson made enemies of an influential cabal in the Republican Party, the Groups. They believed that their ends could merely be achieved one time the president had been removed from office. Many other Republicans had been offended with his lenience towards the former Confederate States, coercing them to collaborate with the Groups, yet impeachment seemed to drastic a step. Two efforts of impeachment were made, but they resulted in failure. The action of President Johnson that led straight to his impeachment was his calculated misdemeanor of the Tenure of Office Act. The Tenure of Office Act expanded the power to rede and accept & # 8221 ; by giving the Senate the right to accept or to reject the dismissal of presidential appointees. Under this jurisprudence, the president could non take officeholders in the executive subdivision while the Senate was in session without a bulk ballot in favour of the action. When the Senate was non in session, the president could suspend an functionary and name a impermanent replacing that would stay until the Senate returned and confirmed it. The president had vetoed the act, but the Republican bulk in Congress overrode the veto. Believing that the act was unconstitutional, Johnson discharged Stanton on February 21, 1868, deliberately withstanding Congress. Eleven articles of impeachment were drafted merely after the impeachment ballot in the House. The articles dealt with his misdemeanor of the Tenure of Office and related events. Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, stand foring the President, emphasized that Andrew Johnson had been within his rights under the Constitution in firing Stanton and questioned whether Stanton was even covered under the legislative act. Besides, Johnson, as any other adult male in the United States, had the right to disobey any jurisprudence set away if he believed it to be unconstitutional. However, if such was the instance, the test should hold been brought to the Supreme Court instead than the Senate. The basic deduction of Curtis was that Johnson could non be removed because he had non committed a offense. Groups in the Senate countered that even if Johnson had non committed condemnable Acts of the Apostless he could still be removed for political grounds. Harmonizing to Alan Hirsch in his Guide to Impeachment:
The fact that the House besides voted to impeach Johnson for hostile comments reveals the political nature of their attempt to throw out him & # 8212 ; to penalize the President for knocking Congress is a misdemeanor of the First Amendment & # 8217 ; s protection of free address, non a legitimate usage of the impeachment procedure.
On May 16, 1868, the Senate began voting on the 11 articles of impeachment. Thirty-five Senators voted to convict. Thus, Johnson failed to be removed by one ballot, 36 ballots & # 8211 ; a two-thirds bulk & # 8211 ; being needed to convict. Twelve Democrats and seven Republicans voted for acquittal. Adequate Senate Republicans had pledged they would vote to assoil if necessary to forestall the two-thirds bulk necessary for strong belief because they feared that taking a president over what was basically a policy dissension would put a unsafe case in point for the hereafter. ( Donald Shafffer ) The Tenure of Office Act would subsequently be repealed in 1
887 and ruled unconstitutional in 1926 by the Supreme Court.
President Clinton, as the first elected functionary to be impeached, was charged in two Articles with: 1 ) Perjury and false and deceptive testimony and statements under curse before a federal expansive jury ( Article I ) , and 2 ) engaging in a class of behavior or strategy to detain and blockade justness ( Article III ) . In response, President Clinton s defence gave the undermentioned rebuttal:
The charges in the two Articles of Impeachment do non allow the strong belief and remotion from office of a duly elected President. The President has acknowledged behavior with Ms. Lewinsky that was improper. But Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President shall be removed from office merely upon Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The charges in the articles do non lift to the degree of high Crimes and Misdemeanors as contemplated by the Establishing Fathers, and they do non fulfill the strict constitutional criterion applied throughout our State s history. Consequently, the Articles of Impeachment should be dismissed.
Arguments arose on whether the issue was a moral issue instead than impeachable one and whether public figures were entitled to private lives. To many, there had ne’er been a true instance against Clinton due to miss of grounds that his actions proved to be a menace to national security. Unlike Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton had public support even after the dirt had been made public. In add-on, the American people twice elected Clinton. For a bulk in Congress to take him from office in the absence of persuasive grounds that his actions have damaged the organic structure politic would make far more harm to American democracy than Clinton & # 8217 ; s ain sordid workss. ( Eric Foner ) The American populaces, every bit good as the Senators themselves, were similar childs waiting in category for the bell to ring, with both sides tiring of the dirt. ( Time 2/18/99 ) In the terminal, Clinton was acquitted on both histories due to miss of a 2/3 ballot with a ballot guilty to non guilty of 45 to 55 with Article I and a 50 to 50 ballot over Article II. In an interview with CBS s Dan Rather ( April 1999 ) , Clinton stated the followers:
Those that did non hold with what I had done and were ferocious that it had worked and that the state was making good, and attempted to utilize what should hold been a constitutional and legal procedure for political terminals, did non predominate That & # 8217 ; s the manner I saw it & # 8230 ; .
Not everyone was satisfied with the result of the instance, though. Harmonizing to Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman, By restricting impeachment to the Lewinsky matter, the house judiciary commission doomed the quest for justness Ignoring concrete grounds of graft, likely lese majesty and obstructor of justness in the Chinagate dirt. However, whether that specific instance or others will be investigated is unfastened to inquiry.
Therefore, both presidents were acquitted for the offenses that they were accused of due to grounds justified in the Constitution. Yet, was impeachment necessary in both instances? By today s criterions, Johnson would ne’er hold been impeached because what would b idea of as an impeachable discourtesy in the yesteryear may non be so any longer in today s times. Political motivations were clearly present in both the tests of Johnson and Clinton. However, in Clinton s instance, political relations has been brought to a new degree with assorted issues, such as morality, coming into drama. Party lines were dissolved during his test every bit good as truenesss lay non within the parties, but in the colour viridity, which was surely plentiful during the economic prosperity during Clinton s clip. Although the American populace may non hold with the determination in Clinton s instance, the point of the affair is that the foundation that our Establishing male parents created still maps. Whether it is as they envisioned it is another inquiry.