DOCSLIB.ORG

IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 3 privilege and offered a resolution for impeachment and conviction (H. Res. 158) impeaching numer- as ‘‘treason, bribery, or other high ous members and former members crimes and misdemeanors.’’ A fur- of the Federal Reserve Board. ther provision of the Constitution During the reading of the resolu- which has been construed to bear tion, a point of order against it upon the impeachment of federal was raised by Mr. Carl E. Mapes, judges is article III, section 1, of Michigan: which provides that judges of the I wish to submit the question to the supreme and inferior courts ‘‘shall Speaker as to whether or not a person hold their offices during good be- who is not now in office is subject to impeachment? This resolution of the haviour.’’ gentleman from Pennsylvania refers to When the House determines several people who are no longer hold- that grounds for impeachment ing any public office. They are not now exist, and they are adopted by the at least civil officers. The Constitution provides that the ‘‘President, Vice House, they are presented to the President, and all civil officers shall be Senate in ‘‘articles’’ of impeach- removed from office on impeachment’’, ment.(20) Any one of the articles and so forth. I have had no opportunity may provide a sufficient basis or to examine the precedents since this ground for impeachment. The im- matter came up, but it occurs to me that the resolution takes in too much peachment in 1936 of Halsted L. territory to make it privileged. Ritter, a U.S. District Court Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Il- Judge, was based on seven arti- linois, ruled as follows: cles of impeachment as amended by the House. The first six articles That is a constitutional question which the Chair cannot pass upon, but charged him with several in- should be passed upon by the House. stances of judicial misconduct, in- cluding champerty, corrupt prac- The resolution was referred on motion to the Committee on the tices, violations of the Judicial Judiciary.(19) Code, and violations of criminal law. Article VII charged actions and conduct, including a restate- § 3. Grounds for Impeach- ment of some of the charges con- ment; Form of Articles 20. Jefferson’s Manual states that: [B]y the usage of Parliament, in impeach- Article II, section 4 of the U.S. ment for writing or speaking, the Constitution defines the grounds particular words need not be speci- fied in the accusation. House Rules 19. 77 CONG. REC. 4055, 73d Cong. 1st and Manual (Jefferson’s Manual) Sess. § 609 (1973). 1955 Ch. 14 § 3 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS tained in the preceding articles, The various grounds for im- ‘‘the reasonable and probable con- peachment and the form of im- sequence’’ of which was ‘‘to bring peachment articles have been doc- his court into scandal and disre- umented during recent investiga- pute,’’ to the prejudice of his tions. Following the inquiry into court, of public confidence in his charges against President Nixon, court, and of public respect for the Committee on the Judiciary and confidence in the federal judi- reported to the House a report ciary.(1) However, in the Senate, recommending impeachment, Judge Ritter was convicted only which report included the text of a on the seventh article. The re- resolution and articles impeaching spondent had moved, before com- the President.(4) As indicated by mencement of trial, to strike arti- the articles, and by the conclu- cle I, or in the alternative to re- sions of the report as to the spe- quire election as to articles I and cific articles, the Committee on II, on the ground that the articles the Judiciary determined that the duplicated the same offenses, but grounds for Presidential impeach- the presiding officer overruled the ment need not be indictable or motion and his decision was not criminal; articles II and III im- challenged in the Senate. The re- peached the President for a course spondent also moved to strike ar- of conduct constituting an abuse ticle VII, the ‘‘general’’ article, on of power and for failure to comply the ground that it improperly cu- with subpenas issued by the com- mulated and duplicated offenses mittee during the impeachment already stated in the preceding inquiry.(5) The committee also con- articles, but this motion was re- cluded that an article of impeach- jected by the Senate.(2) ment could cumulate charges and At the conclusion of the Ritter facts constituting a course of con- trial, and following conviction only duct, as in article II.(6) on article VII, a point of order was raised against the vote in that the 4. See § 3.1, infra. 5. See § 3.7, infra, for the majority article combined the grounds that views and § 3.8, infra, for the minor- were alleged for impeachment. ity views on the articles of impeach- The President pro tempore over- ment. ruled the point of order.(3) 6. See § 3.3, infra, for the majority and minority views on article II. 1. See § 3.2, infra. In its final report the Committee 2. See § 3.4, infra. on the Judiciary cited a staff report 3. See § 3.5, infra. by the impeachment inquiry staff on 1956 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 3 The grounds for impeachment of that a federal judge could be im- federal judges were scrutinized in peached for judicial conduct which 1970, in the inquiry into the con- is either criminal or a serious duct of Associate Justice Douglas abuse of public duty, or for non- of the Supreme Court. Concepts of judicial conduct which is crimi- impeachment were debated on the nal.(8) floor of the House, as to the ascer- Cross References tainability of the definition of an impeachable offense, and as to Amendments to articles adopted by the whether a federal judge could be House, see § 10, infra. impeached for conduct not related Charges not resulting in impeachment, see § 14, infra. to the performance of his judicial Grounds for conviction in the Ritter im- function or for judicial conduct not peachment trial, see § 18, infra. criminal in nature.(7) A special subcommittee of the Collateral Reference Committee on the Judiciary was Articles of Impeachment Voted by the created to investigate and report House of Representatives, see Im- on the charges of impeachment peachment, Selected Materials, Com- mittee on the Judiciary, H. Doc. No. against Justice Douglas, and sub- 93–7, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 1973. mitted to the committee a final re- port recommending against im- peachment, finding the evidence insufficient. The report concluded Form of Resolution and Arti- cles of Impeachment the grounds for presidential im- peachment, prepared before the com- § 3.1 Articles of impeachment mittee had proceeded to compile all are reported from the Com- the evidence and before the com- mittee on the Judiciary in mittee had proceeded to consider a the form of a resolution. resolution and articles of impeach- ( ) ment. While the report and its con- On Aug. 20, 1974, 9 the Com- clusions were not intended to rep- mittee on the Judiciary submitted resent the views of the committee or to the House a report on its inves- of its individual members, the report is printed in part in the appendix to 8. See § 3.13, infra. this chapter as a synopsis of the his- 9. H. REPT. NO. 93–1305, Committee on tory, origins, and concepts of the im- the Judiciary, printed in the Record peachment process and of the at 120 CONG. REC. 29219, 29220, 93d grounds for impeachment. See § 3.6, Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1974. For infra, and appendix, infra. complete text of H. REPT. NO. 93– 7. See § § 3.9–3.12, infra. 1305, see id. at pp. 29219–361. 1957 Ch. 14 § 3 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS tigation into charges of impeach- lawful entry of the headquarters of the able offenses against President Democratic National Committee in Richard Nixon. The committee in- Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intel- cluded in the text of the report a ligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard resolution and articles of impeach- M. Nixon, using the powers of his high ment which had been adopted by office, engaged personally and through the committee: his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to Impeaching Richard M. Nixon, Presi- delay, impede, and obstruct the inves- dent of the United States, of high tigation of such unlawful entry; to crimes and misdemeanors. cover up, conceal and protect those re- Resolved, That Richard M. Nixon, sponsible; and to conceal the existence President of the United States, is im- and scope of other unlawful covert ac- peached for high crimes and mis- tivities. demeanors, and that the following arti- The means used to implement this cles of impeachment be exhibited to course of conduct or plan included one the Senate: or more of the following: Articles of impeachment exhibited by (1) making or causing to be made the House of Representatives of the false or misleading statements to United States of America in the name lawfully authorized investigative of- of itself and of all of the people of the ficers and employees of the United United States of America, against States; Richard M. Nixon, President of the (2) withholding relevant and mate- United States of America, in mainte- rial evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative of- nance and support of its impeachment ficers and employees of the United against him for high crimes and mis- States; demeanors. (3) approving, condoning, acqui- escing in, and counseling witnesses ARTICLE I with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully In his conduct of the office of Presi- authorized investigative officers and dent of the United States, Richard M.
Recommended publications
  • Information Gathering and Public Trust Transparency Statement – 26 June 2019 Page 1 of 3

    Information Gathering and Public Trust Transparency Statement – 26 June 2019 Page 1 of 3

    Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Information Gathering and Public Trust Transparency Statement – 26 June 2019 Page 1 of 3 Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Information Gathering and Public Trust Transparency Statement Purpose The purpose of this statement is to be more transparent with New Zealanders about the kind of information gathering activity that the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa) undertakes to give effect to our responsibilities to: protect people, information, places, and our taonga (collections); to ensure regulatory compliance; and to ensure the privacy, safety and security of the public, our visitors and staff. In December 2018 the State Services Commission issued the Model Standard for Information Gathering and Public Trust1 under Section 57(4) of the State Sector Act. This applies across the State Sector, including to Te Papa as an Autonomous Crown Entity. The Model Standard relates to information gathering associated with regulatory compliance, law enforcement and security and health and safety requirements. The purpose of the Model Standard is to ensure that government agencies use their authorities to undertake surveillance and information gathering lawfully, and in a way that respects and protects the rights and privacy of people. Transparency Statement This transparency statement explains how we collect, use and share information gathered about members of the public or other entities (directly or indirectly) in accordance with the Information Gathering Model Standards. Te Papa as the National Museum does not have any law enforcement and regulatory compliance or enforcement responsibilities, and thus does not gather any information for these purposes.
  • Chapter 2. Public Sector Whistleblower Protection Laws in OECD Countries

    Chapter 2. Public Sector Whistleblower Protection Laws in OECD Countries

    2. PUBLIC SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS IN OECD COUNTRIES – 39 Chapter 2. Public sector whistleblower protection laws in OECD countries The purpose of whistleblower protection is to protect individuals from being exposed and retaliated against for disclosing misconduct. Despite the common aim of whistleblower protection systems, the disclosure processes in place in OECD countries vary. This chapter analyses the varying elements and protections that countries have put in place and how they apply throughout disclosure processes, including: the scope of coverage and subject matter; reporting requirements; channels of reporting; fundamental safeguards, such as anonymity and confidentiality; and the prospect of incentives. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. COMMITTING TO EFFECTIVE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION © OECD 2016 40 – 2. PUBLIC SECTOR WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION LAWS IN OECD COUNTRIES Upon identifying wrongdoing or the attempt to commit wrongdoing, an employee may not be certain of what to do with the information discovered, where or whom to turn to, and whether they are protected by relevant whistleblower protection mechanisms. Throughout the disclosure process, employees may have reservations about safeguards such as anonymity and confidentiality measures, they may also be incentivised by the prospect of a reward. The multitude of steps along the disclosure process can be daunting and vague, however, if implemented according to whistleblower protection laws, the disclosure process can and should be the first system in line to protect whistleblowers from reprisal.
  • Not the King's Bench Edward A

    Not the King's Bench Edward A

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Not the King's Bench Edward A. Hartnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hartnett, Edward A., "Not the King's Bench" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 303. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/303 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT THE KING'S BENCH Edward A. Hartnett* Speaking at a public birthday party for an icon, even if the honoree is one or two hundred years old, can be a surprisingly tricky business. Short of turning the party into a roast, it seems rude to criticize the birthday boy too harshly. On the other hand, it is at least as important to avoid unwarranted and exaggerated praise.1 The difficult task, then, is to try to say something re­ motely new or interesting while navigating that strait. The conference organizers did make it easier for me in one respect: My assignment does not involve those ideas for which Marbury is invoked as an icon. It is for others to wrestle in well­ worn trenches with exalted arguments about judicial review and its overgrown descendent judicial supremacy, while trying to avoid unseemly criticism or fawning praise. I, on the other hand, am to address more technical issues involving section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its provision granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States

    Extradition Law at the Crossroads: the Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States

    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 19 Issue 3 1998 Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States Lis Wiehl University of Washington Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Lis Wiehl, Extradition Law at the Crossroads: The Trend Toward Extending Greater Constitutional Procedural Protections to Fugitives Fighting Extradition from the United States, 19 MICH. J. INT'L L. 729 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol19/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXTRADITION LAW AT THE CROSSROADS: THE TREND TOWARD EXTENDING GREATER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS TO FUGITIVES FIGHTING EXTRADITION FROM THE UNITED STATES Lis Wiehl* PROLOGUE ............................................................................................. 730 INTRODUCrION ................... ....................... 730 I. BACKGROUND: THE LIMITED NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION
  • Commandeering Under the Treaty Power

    Commandeering Under the Treaty Power

    NOTES COMMANDEERING UNDER THE TREATY POWER JANET R. CARTER* In this Note, Janet Carter argues that the anticommandeeringprinciple announced in Printz v. United States should not constrain congressional implementation of treaty obligations. The Printz Court struck the balance between federal goals and states' rights knowing that Congress had alternative means of achieving its ends: the spending power and the threat of conditionalpreemption. Carter argues that those alternative means are largely unavailable,or at least less likely to work, when Congress is seeking to implement a treaty obligation. Therefore, the Printz Court's federal/state compromise will weigh too heavily againstfederal interests if applied to treaty-implementingprograms, suggesting that an absolute prohibitionon federal commandeeringpursuant to the treaty power is inappropriate. INTRODUCTION The powers of Congress, limited to those enumerated in the Con- stitution, are constrained further by the Tenth Amendment' and the general principles of federalism it embodies.2 However, in Missouri v. Holland,3 the Supreme Court held that federalism does not constrain * I would like to thank Professor Christopher Eisgruber for his generous guidance and advice, and Professors Barry Friedman and David Golove for their helpful comments. Thanks also to my wonderful editor Maggie Lemos, and to Paul Hayes, Alex Reid, Sally Kesh, and David Karp. 1 U.S. Const. amend. X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."). 2 According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, that is. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (holding that federal government may not commandeer state executive); New York v.
  • Impeachment in Florida

    Impeachment in Florida

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 1 Winter 1978 Impeachment in Florida Frederick B. Karl Marguerite Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Frederick B. Karl & Marguerite Davis, Impeachment in Florida, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (1978) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol6/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 6 WINTER 1978 NUMBER 1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL AND MARGUERITE DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY ..... 5 II. EFFECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ................... 9 III. GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT .................. 11 IV. IMPEACHMENT FOR ACTS PRIOR TO PRESENT TERM OF OFFICE .................... 30 V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 39 VI. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ..................... ........ 43 VII. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE SENATE ......... 47 VIII. IMPEACHMENT ALTERNATIVES .................... 51 A. CriminalSanctions .......................... 52 B . Incapacity ........ ... ... ............... 53 C. Ethics Commission ......................... 53 D. Judicial QualificationsCommission ........... 53 E . B ar D iscipline .............................. 54 F. Executive Suspension ........................ 55 IX . C ON CLUSION ................................... 55 X . A PPEN DIX ....... ............................ 59 2 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL* AND MARGUERITE DAVIS** What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magis- trate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assas- sination in wch.
  • Scanned Using Fujitsu 6670 Scanner and Scandall Pro Ver

    Scanned Using Fujitsu 6670 Scanner and Scandall Pro Ver

    2002/33 Securities Act (Trustee Companies) Exemption Amendment Notice 2002 Pursuant to the Securities Act 1978, the Securities Commission gives the following notice. Contents 1 Title 6 Exemption from sections 33(3) and 2 Commencement 37(3) 3 Amendment to Title of principal 7 Exemption from section 52(1) and notice (3) 4 Interpretation 8 Exemption from section 54 5 Application of notice Notice 1 Title (1) This notice is the Securities Act (Trustee Companies) Exemp­ tion Amendment Notice 2002. (2) In this notice, the Securities Act (Trustee Companies) Exemp­ tion Notice 1997 1 is called "the principal notice". I SR 19971270 2 Commencement This notice comes into force on 1 March 2002. 3 Amendment to Title of principal notice Clause 1(1) of the principal notice is amended by omitting the words "Trustee Companies", and substituting the words "Group Investment Funds" . 4 Interpretation (1) Clause 2( 1) of the principal notice is amended by revoking the definition of Fund, and substituting the following definition: 136 Securities Act (Trustee Companies) 200213:1 Exemption Amendment Notice 2002 cl 8 "Fund means a Group Investment Fund established under­ "(a) section 29 of the Trustee Companies Act 1967; or "(b) section 63 of the Public Trust Act 2001; or "(c) section 42A of the Public Trust Office Act 1957". (2) Clause 2( 1) of the principal notice is amended by revoking the definition of trustee company, and substituting the following definition: "trustee means- "(a) a trustee company within the meaning of the Trustee Companies Act 1967 and that is named in Schedule 1: "(b) Public Trust." 5 Application of notice Clause 2A of the principal notice is amended by revoking subclause (1), and substituting the following subclause: "( 1) This notice applies only to qualifying participatory securities for which a prospectus is registered on or before 31 March 2002.
  • The "Public Trust" As It Is Used in Article VI

    The "Public Trust" As It Is Used in Article VI

    THE "PUBIC TRUST" JenniferAnglim Kreder ABSTRACT It seems as if no one really knows the meaning of the term "public Trust" used in the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. 7iis Article is the first scholarly attempt to define the term by exploring historical evidence pre-dating the nation's jounding through the Constitution's adoption, including British and colonial trust law that influenced the Founders' conception of the term. Today, one can find the term used only in the cases and scholarship concerning environmental law, tax law and museum law. After a thorough analysis of the old and new sources, this Article proposes the following original definition of term "public Trust": "Any entity given special privilege by the government, beyond the simple grant of a state corporate charteroften coupled with state or federal tax waivers, so long as that entity is legally obligated to engage in conduct that could traditionally have been performed by the government itself for the public's benefit." TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... ..... 1426 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ARTICLE VI............ .... 1428 A. The Stuart Period & Colonial Era......... ............... 1429 B. The Foundingand Early Republic ................... 1430 C. InterpretationalFoundations .................. ..... 1434 D. Fiduciary Underpinnings .......................... 1438 II. MODERN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST....... ..... 1440 A. Judicially Recognized Trusts and Non-Profit Corporations.. 1441 B. EnvironmentalRegulation ......................... 1443 1. Historical Origins of the Environmental "PublicTrust * Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law. The author wishes to disclose that she has done a limited amount of legal work for American Atheists, Inc., including in Ameri- can Atheists, Inc.
  • The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President

    The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President

    Legal Sidebari The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President January 15, 2021 For the second time in just over a year, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump. The House previously voted to impeach President Trump on December 18, 2019, and the Senate voted to acquit the President on February 5, 2020. Because the timing of this second impeachment vote is so close to the end of the Trump Administration, it is possible that any resulting Senate trial may not occur until after President Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. This possibility has prompted the question of whether the Senate can try a former President for conduct that occurred while he was in office. The Constitution’s Impeachment Provisions The Constitution grants Congress authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil Officers” for treason, bribery, or “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Impeachment is one of the various checks and balances created by the Constitution, and it serves as a powerful tool for holding government officers accountable. The impeachment process entails two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate houses of Congress. First, a simple majority of the House impeaches—or formally approves allegations of wrongdoing amounting to an impeachable offense. The second proceeding is an impeachment trial in the Senate. If the Senate votes to convict with a two-thirds majority, the official is removed from office. The Senate also can disqualify an official upon conviction from holding a federal office in the future; according to Senate practice, this vote follows the vote for conviction.
  • The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 Depaul L

    The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 Depaul L

    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1989 The onsC titutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment Gerard V. Bradley Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Gerard V. Bradley, The Constitutional Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 38 DePaul L. Rev. 817 (1988-1989). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/773 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Gerard V. Bradley* INTRODUCTION We presently inhabit a "judicialized" regime of search and seizure. The "reasonableness clause" of the fourth amendment is universally understood to require a "common law of search and seizure," 1 yet one of constitutional stature. That is, it binds the states and cannot be undone by ordinary legislation. The purpose of this Article is to demonstrate that this near universal interpretation of the fourth amendment is unfounded. Indeed, it will be argued that the current view is contrary to the plain meaning of the fourth amendment, as historically recovered, and is inconsistent with the basic constitutional structure. Instead, the reasonableness clause, properly understood, does not authorize courts to do anything, but exists to affirm legislative supremacy over the law of search and seizure. Accordingly, the only judicially operative portion of the amendment is the "warrant clause." This interpretation can and should be installed as the operative premise of the fourth amendment.
  • Impeachment and Removal

    Impeachment and Removal

    Impeachment and Removal Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney October 29, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44260 Impeachment and Removal Summary The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other “civil Officers of the United States” found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach an individual in the hands of the House of Representatives. Should a simple majority of the House approve articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which the impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate, to which the Constitution provides the sole power to try an impeachment. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. Should a conviction occur, the Senate retains limited authority to determine the appropriate punishment. Under the Constitution, the penalty for conviction on an impeachable offense is limited to either removal from office, or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of “honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Although removal from office would appear to flow automatically from conviction on an article of impeachment, a separate vote is necessary should the Senate deem it appropriate to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust. Approval of such a measure requires only the support of a simple majority. Key Takeaways of This Report The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Protection of Economic Interests, 1889-1910 David P. Curriet The Supreme Court's first hundred years virtually ended with the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in March 1888. Five of Waite's brethren-Stanley Matthews, Samuel F. Miller, Joseph P. Bradley, Samuel Blatchford, and Lucius Q.C. Lamar-left the Court within the next five years, and a sixth-Stephen J. Field-hung on after his powers had faded.1 By 1894, Melville W. Fuller2 presided over an essentially new Court consisting of David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras, Howell E. Jackson, and Edward Douglass White3 in addition to the three holdovers, John M. Harlan, Horace Gray, and Field. Jackson and Field soon gave way to Rufus W. Peckham and Joseph McKenna; Gray and Shiras, after the turn of the century, were replaced by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William R. Day. William H. Moody and Horace R. Lurton served briefly at the end of Fuller's term, and another mas- sive turnover accompanied Fuller's death in 1910. Thus the per- sonnel of Fuller's twenty-one-year tenure is well separated from that of the preceding and following periods. Moreover, although twenty Justices sat during this time, eleven did the lion's share of the work: Harlan, Gray, Fuller, Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, t Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. I thank Karla Kraus and Richard Levy for valuable research assistance, Mitchell Daffner for taming the computer, Richard Helmholz, Richard Posner, and Cass R. Sunstein for helpful comments, and the Jerome S.