DOCSLIB.ORG

Impeachment Powers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impeachment Powers CHAPTER 14 Impeachment Powers A. Generally § 1. Constitutional Provisions; House and Senate Func- tions § 2. Who May Be Impeached; Effect of Resignation § 3. Grounds for Impeachment; Form of Articles § 4. Effect of Adjournment B. Investigation and Impeachment § 5. Introduction and Referral of Charges § 6. Committee Investigations § 7. Committee Consideration; Reports § 8. Consideration and Debate in the House § 9. Presentation to Senate; Managers § 10. Replication; Amending Adopted Articles C. Trial in the Senate § 11. Organization and Rules § 12. Conduct of Trial § 13. Voting; Deliberation and Judgment D. History of Proceedings § 14. Charges Not Resulting in Impeachment § 15. Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon § 16. Impeachment of Judge English § 17. Impeachment of Judge Louderback § 18. Impeachment of Judge Ritter Appendix Commentary and editing by Peter D. Robinson. J.D. 1939 Ch. 14 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS INDEX TO PRECEDENTS Adjournment sine die, effect on im- Charges not resulting in impeach- peachment proceedings ment—Cont. authority of managers following expi- Perkins, Frances, Secretary of Labor, ration of Congress, § 4.2 adverse report by committee, § 14.9 impeachment in one Congress and trial Truman, Harry, President, charges not in the next, § 4.1 acted on, §§ 14.11, 14.12 investigation in one Congress and im- Watson, Albert, judge, charges not peachment in the next, §§ 4.3, 4.4 acted on, § 14.10 Amending articles of impeachment Committee consideration and report privilege of resolution reported by broadcast of committee meeting, § 7.3 managers, § 10.5 order of business, § 7.2 procedure, §§ 10.4–10.6 report submitted without resolution of right to amend articles reserved by impeachment, § 7.7 House, § 10.1 reports as to discontinuation of im- Senate notified of amendments, § 10.6 peachment, §§ 7.8–7.10 Censure as related to impeachment, reports authorizing investigations as § 1.3 privileged, §§ 5.8, 6.2, 6.3 Charges not resulting in impeach- reports recommending impeachment, ment calendaring and printing of, § 7.6 Agnew, Spiro, Vice President, request resolution and articles of impeachment for investigation not acted upon, considered together, § 7.1 § 14.17 Committee investigations Alschuler, Samuel, judge, adverse re- evidence in impeachment inquiry, port by investigating committee, §§ 6.7–6.10 § 14.7 hearing procedures, §§ 6.5, 6.6 committee reports as to discontinu- ation of impeachment, §§ 7.8–7.10 privilege of House as to impeachment evidence, § 6.13 Douglas, William, Supreme Court Jus- tice, investigation of charges and ad- resolutions authorizing, consideration verse report, §§ 14.14–14.16 of, § 6.2 Federal Reserve Board members, resolutions authorizing, referral of, charges not acted on, § 14.5 § 6.1 Hoover, Herbert, President, charges resolutions authorizing, reported by in- not acted on, § 14.3 vestigating committee, § 6.2 Johnson Albert, judge, charges not subcommittee, creation and powers of, acted on, § 14.10 § 6.11 Lowell, James, judge, adverse report subpenas, failure to comply with, § 6.12 by investigating committee, § 14.4 witnesses, interrogation of, §§ 6.3, 6.4 Mellon, Andrew, Secretary of the Committee jurisdiction Treasury, investigation discontinued Judiciary Committee, over resolutions following resignation, § 14.2 proposing impeachment, § 5.10 Molyneaux, Joseph, judge, charges not Rules Committee, over resolutions au- acted on, § 14.6 thorizing investigations, § 5.11 1940 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 Consideration and debate Grounds for impeachment and form as to resolution and articles of im- of articles—Cont. peachment, §§ 8.5–8.10 President, grounds for impeachment of, broadcast of proceedings, § 8.11 §§ 3.6–3.8 control of time for, § 8.1 Judgment division of the question, § 8.10 division of the question, § 13.8 motion for previous question, § 8.8 notification of, to House, § 13.12 privilege for consideration of committee order of, not debatable, § 13.7 reports, § 8.2 removal from office after conviction, question of consideration, § 5.12 § 13.9 question of privilege to present Louderback, Harold, judge, impeach- charges, §§ 5.6, 5.7 ment of resolution and articles of impeachment committee report adverse to impeach- considered together, § 8.1 ment, § 17.1 unanimous-consent agreements gov- consideration in the House and adop- erning, § 8.1 tion of substitute resolution of im- peachment, §§ 17.1, 17.2 voting, excuse or disqualification from, continuation of proceedings into next § 13.4 Congress, § 17.4 Courts and the power of impeach- election of managers, § 17.3 ment, §§ 1.1, 1.2 Managers to conduct trial on part of Dismissal of proceedings in Senate House pursuant to House request, § 2.2 answer of respondent referred to man- English, George, judge, impeachment agers, § 10.2 of appearance in Senate to present arti- consideration and debate in House, cles, §§ 9.5, 11.4 § 16.2 appointed by resolution, §§ 9.1, 9.3 impeachment by the House, §§ 16.1– authority of, following expiration of 16.4 Congress, § 4.2 motion to recommit resolution, § 16.3 authority to prepare and submit rep- report by investigating committee rec- lication, § 10.3 ommending impeachment, § 16.1 composition and number of, § 9.2 separate vote on articles, § 16.3 excused from attending House ses- trial discontinued following resignation sions, § 9.4 of respondent, § 16.4 jurisdiction of, over related matters, Grounds for impeachment and form §§ 9.6, 9.7 of articles powers and funds granted by resolu- cumulative and duplicatory articles, tion, § 9.1 §§ 3.3–3.5 supplemental Senate rules referred to, form of resolutions and articles of im- § 10.2 peachment, §§ 3.1, 3.2 withdrawal of, while Senate delib- judges, federal, grounds for impeach- erates, § 13.1 ment of, §§ 3.9–3.13 Motions relating to impeachment offenses not committed during term of proposals office, § 3.14 for the previous question, § 8.8 1941 Ch. 14 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS Motions relating to impeachment Privilege of impeachment propo- proposals—Cont. sitions—Cont. to discharge, § 8.3 questions incidental to impeachment, to lay on table or to refer, §§ 5.12, 5.13 §§ 5.8, 5.9 to recommit, § 8.9 Resignation of accused, discontinu- Nixon, Richard M., President, pro- ance of proceedings, §§ 2.1–2.3 ceedings against Ritter, Halsted, judge, impeachment authority for investigation by Com- of mittee on Judiciary, § 15.2 amendment of articles by the House, broadcasting House and Senate pro- §§ 18.10, 18.11 ceedings, resolutions authorizing, answer of respondent, § 18.15 §§ 15.10, 15.11 appearance of respondent before the confidentiality of inquiry materials, Senate, § 18.8 § 15.3 conduct of trial, § 18.16 consideration by committee of articles of impeachment, § 15.7 consideration of resolution and articles consideration by House of articles of by the House, § 18.4 impeachment, § 15.12 conviction of, § 18.17 evidence in House inquiry, subpenaed deliberation of Senate behind closed by court, § 15.14 doors, § 18.17 introduction of impeachment charges, election of managers and their author- § 15.1 ity, § 18.5 pardon following resignation, § 15.15 final arguments, § 18.16 procedures for presenting evidence and House notified of order and judgment, examining witnesses, § 15.6 § 18.18 report of committee, acceptance by judgment ordered, § 18.17 House, § 15.13 motions to strike articles and specifica- report of committee following resigna- tions, §§ 18.12–18.14 tion of President, § 15.13 organization of Senate for trial, §§ 18.6, reports by inquiry staff, §§ 15.4, 15.5 18.7 resignation of President, § 15.13 presentation of articles to Senate, Senate review of impeachment trial § 18.7 rules, § 15.8 replication to respondent’s answer, Senate select committee, evidence re- § 18.15 leased by, § 15.9 report of Judiciary Committee recom- Presentation of articles to Senate mending impeachment, § 18.3 appearance of managers to present ar- Trial in the Senate ticles, §§ 9.5, 11.4 date for, messaged to House from Sen- appearance of managers to present ar- ate, § 9.5 ticles, § 11.4 managers authorized to present arti- appearance of respondent, § 11.9 cles to Senate, § 9.1 debate on organizational questions, Privilege of impeachment propo- § 11.11 sitions deliberation behind closed doors, § 13.1 charges and resolutions directly im- House notified of order and judgment, peaching, §§ 5.1–5.3 § 13.12 1942 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 Trial in the Senate—Cont. Trial procedure—Cont. oath and organization, §§ 11.5, 11.6 supplemental rules to govern, §§ 11.7, opinions of individual Senators, filing 11.8 of, § 13.11 suspension of trial for messages and presiding officer, appointment of, legislative business, §§ 12.5, 12.6 § 11.12 witness, respondent as, § 12.11 privileges of Senate floor during, Voting on conviction and judgment § 11.13 excuse or disqualification from, § 13.4 Trial procedure majority vote for judgment of disquali- evidence, presiding officer rules on ad- fication, § 13.10 missibility of, § 12.7 evidence returned at close of trial, on removal following conviction, § 13.9 § 12.9 orders governing, § 13.2 exhibits offered in evidence, § 12.8 pairs not recognized, § 13.3 final arguments, § 12.12 points of order against vote on convic- motions to strike articles, §§ 12.2–12.4 tion, §§ 13.5, 13.6 opening arguments, § 12.1 putting the question, § 13.2 rules for trial, nature and amendment two-thirds vote required for conviction of, §§ 11.1–11.3 § 13.5 1943 Impeachment Powers A. GENERALLY § 1. Constitutional Provi- nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Pun- sions; House and Senate ishment, according to Law. Article I, Functions Section 3, clause 7. Two other sections of the U.S. The impeachment power is de- Constitution also mention im- lineated and circumscribed by sev- peachment: eral provisions of the U.S. Con- stitution. They state: The President . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for The President, Vice President and Offences against the United States, ex- all civil Officers of the United States, cept in Cases of Impeachment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 19-5331 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA C
    USCA Case #19-5331 Document #1871493 Filed: 11/16/2020 Page 1 of 87 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021] No. 19-5331 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD F. MCGAHN, II, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia EN BANC BRIEF FOR APPELLANT JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Acting Assistant Attorney General SOPAN JOSHI Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General MARK R. FREEMAN MICHAEL S. RAAB COURTNEY L. DIXON DENNIS FAN Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7243 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353-8189 USCA Case #19-5331 Document #1871493 Filed: 11/16/2020 Page 2 of 87 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel certifies: A. Parties and Amici The defendant-appellant is Donald F. McGahn, II. The plaintiff-appellee is the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives. Amici curiae in this Court are: Republican legal experts, former government officials, and former members of Congress (Steve Bartlett, Jack Buechner, Tom Coleman, George Conway III, Mickey Edwards, Stuart Gerson, Gordon Humphrey, Bob Inglis, James Kolbe, Steven Kuykendall, Jim Leach, Mike Parker, Thomas Petri, Trevor Potter, Reid Ribble, Jonathan Rose, Paul Rosenzweig, Peter Smith, J.W. Verret, Dick Zimmer); James Murray; former members of Congress and former Executive Branch officials (Thomas Andrews, William Baer, Brian Baird, Michael Barnes, John Barrow, Douglas Bereuter, Howard Berman, Rick Boucher, Barbara Boxer, Bruce Braley, Carol Mosley Braun, Roland Burria, Lois Cappa, Jean Carnahan, Robert Carr, Rod Chandler, Linda Chavez, Bill Cohen, James Cole, Jerry Costello, Mark S.
    [Show full text]
  • Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 constituteproject.org Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 Table of contents I. Historical Foundations . 3 II. Basic Provisions . 4 III. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . 7 1. General Provisions . 7 2. Personal and Political Freedoms and Rights . 9 3. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . 14 IV. Organization of Government . 18 1. The Croatian Parliament . 18 2. The President of the Republic of Croatia . 22 3. The Government of the Republic of Croatia . 26 4. Judicial Power . 28 5. The Office of the Public Prosecutions . 30 V. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia . 31 VI. Local and Regional Self-Government . 33 VII. International Relations . 35 1. International agreements . 35 2. Association and Succession . 35 VIII. European Union . 36 1. Legal Grounds for Membership and Transfer of Constitutional Powers . 36 2. Participation in European Union Institutions . 36 3. European Union Law . 37 4. Rights of European Union Citizens . 37 IX. Amending the Constitution . 37 IX. Concluding Provisions . 38 Croatia 1991 (rev. 2010) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 I. Historical Foundations • Reference to country's history The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood,
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Van Buren: the Greatest American President
    SUBSCRIBE NOW AND RECEIVE CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN* FREE! “The Independent Review does not accept “The Independent Review is pronouncements of government officials nor the excellent.” conventional wisdom at face value.” —GARY BECKER, Noble Laureate —JOHN R. MACARTHUR, Publisher, Harper’s in Economic Sciences Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive a free book of your choice* such as the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. This quarterly journal, guided by co-editors Christopher J. Coyne, and Michael C. Munger, and Robert M. Whaples offers leading-edge insights on today’s most critical issues in economics, healthcare, education, law, history, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Thought-provoking and educational, The Independent Review is blazing the way toward informed debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! *Order today for more FREE book options Perfect for students or anyone on the go! The Independent Review is available on mobile devices or tablets: iOS devices, Amazon Kindle Fire, or Android through Magzter. INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE, 100 SWAN WAY, OAKLAND, CA 94621 • 800-927-8733 • [email protected] PROMO CODE IRA1703 Martin Van Buren The Greatest American President —————— ✦ —————— JEFFREY ROGERS HUMMEL resident Martin Van Buren does not usually receive high marks from histori- ans. Born of humble Dutch ancestry in December 1782 in the small, upstate PNew York village of Kinderhook, Van Buren gained admittance to the bar in 1803 without benefit of higher education. Building on a successful country legal practice, he became one of the Empire State’s most influential and prominent politi- cians while the state was surging ahead as the country’s wealthiest and most populous.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-And-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 51 | Issue 2 Article 3 1-2000 Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marjorie Cohn, Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public, 51 Hastings L.J. 365 (2000). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol51/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public by MARJORIE COHN* Table of Contents I. Impeachment Rules and Precedents ................................................ 368 A. Current Impeachment Rules ............................................... 368 B. A Tradition of Senate Secrecy ............................................ 370 (1) Congressional Rule-Making Authority ........................ 370 (2) The "Closed-Door Policy"............................................. 370 (3) The Twentieth Century: The Door Opens Wider ...... 374 (4) When the Doors Are Closed ......................................... 376 C. Historical Impeachment Rules ............................................ 377 D. Why Did the Presumption of Openness Change in .. 1868 with the Andrew Johnson Impeachment?
    [Show full text]
  • Campaign and Transition Collection: 1928
    HERBERT HOOVER PAPERS CAMPAIGN LITERATURE SERIES, 1925-1928 16 linear feet (31 manuscript boxes and 7 card boxes) Herbert Hoover Presidential Library 151 Campaign Literature – General 152-156 Campaign Literature by Title 157-162 Press Releases Arranged Chronologically 163-164 Campaign Literature by Publisher 165-180 Press Releases Arranged by Subject 181-188 National Who’s Who Poll Box Contents 151 Campaign Literature – General California Elephant Campaign Feature Service Campaign Series 1928 (numerical index) Cartoons (2 folders, includes Satterfield) Clipsheets Editorial Digest Editorials Form Letters Highlights on Hoover Booklets Massachusetts Elephant Political Advertisements Political Features – NY State Republican Editorial Committee Posters Editorial Committee Progressive Magazine 1928 Republic Bulletin Republican Feature Service Republican National Committee Press Division pamphlets by Arch Kirchoffer Series. Previously Marked Women's Page Service Unpublished 152 Campaign Literature – Alphabetical by Title Abstract of Address by Robert L. Owen (oversize, brittle) Achievements and Public Services of Herbert Hoover Address of Acceptance by Charles Curtis Address of Acceptance by Herbert Hoover Address of John H. Bartlett (Herbert Hoover and the American Home), Oct 2, 1928 Address of Charles D., Dawes, Oct 22, 1928 Address by Simeon D. Fess, Dec 6, 1927 Address of Mr. Herbert Hoover – Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 15, 1928 Address of Mr. Herbert Hoover – Elizabethton, Tennessee. Oct 6, 1928 Address of Mr. Herbert Hoover – New York, New York, Oct 22, 1928 Address of Mr. Herbert Hoover – Newark, New Jersey, Sep 17, 1928 Address of Mr. Herbert Hoover – St. Louis, Missouri, Nov 2, 1928 Address of W. M. Jardine, Oct. 4, 1928 Address of John L. McNabb, June 14, 1928 Address of U.
    [Show full text]
  • ENG 350 Summer12
    ENG 350: THE HISTORY OF HIP-HOP With your host, Dr. Russell A. Potter, a.k.a. Professa RAp Monday - Thursday, 6:30-8:30, Craig-Lee 252 http://350hiphop.blogspot.com/ In its rise to the top of the American popular music scene, Hip-hop has taken on all comers, and issued beatdown after beatdown. Yet how many of its fans today know the origins of the music? Sure, people might have heard something of Afrika Bambaataa or Grandmaster Flash, but how about the Last Poets or Grandmaster CAZ? For this class, we’ve booked a ride on the wayback machine which will take us all the way back to Hip-hop’s precursors, including the Blues, Calypso, Ska, and West African griots. From there, we’ll trace its roots and routes through the ‘parties in the park’ in the late 1970’s, the emergence of political Hip-hop with Public Enemy and KRS-One, the turn towards “gangsta” style in the 1990’s, and on into the current pantheon of rappers. Along the way, we’ll take a closer look at the essential elements of Hip-hop culture, including Breaking (breakdancing), Writing (graffiti), and Rapping, with a special look at the past and future of turntablism and digital sampling. Our two required textbook are Bradley and DuBois’s Anthology of Rap (Yale University Press) and Neal and Forman’s That's the Joint: The Hip-Hop Studies Reader are both available at the RIC campus store. Films shown in part or in whole will include Bamboozled, Style Wars, The Freshest Kids: A History of the B-Boy, Wild Style, and Zebrahead; there will is also a course blog with a discussion board and a wide array of links to audio and text resources at http://350hiphop.blogspot.com/ WRITTEN WORK: An informal response to our readings and listenings is due each week on the blog.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme
    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Feet High and Rising”--De La Soul (1989) Added to the National Registry: 2010 Essay by Vikki Tobak (Guest Post)*
    “3 Feet High and Rising”--De La Soul (1989) Added to the National Registry: 2010 Essay by Vikki Tobak (guest post)* De La Soul For hip-hop, the late 1980’s was a tinderbox of possibility. The music had already raised its voice over tensions stemming from the “crack epidemic,” from Reagan-era politics, and an inner city community hit hard by failing policies of policing and an underfunded education system--a general energy rife with tension and desperation. From coast to coast, groundbreaking albums from Public Enemy’s “It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back” to N.W.A.’s “Straight Outta Compton” were expressing an unprecedented line of fire into American musical and political norms. The line was drawn and now the stage was set for an unparalleled time of creativity, righteousness and possibility in hip-hop. Enter De La Soul. De La Soul didn’t just open the door to the possibility of being different. They kicked it in. If the preceding generation took hip-hop from the park jams and revolutionary commentary to lay the foundation of a burgeoning hip-hop music industry, De La Soul was going to take that foundation and flip it. The kids on the outside who were a little different, dressed different and had a sense of humor and experimentation for days. In 1987, a trio from Long Island, NY--Kelvin “Posdnous” Mercer, Dave “Trugoy the Dove” Jolicoeur, and Vincent “Maseo, P.A. Pasemaster Mase and Plug Three” Mason—were classmates at Amityville Memorial High in the “black belt” enclave of Long Island were dusting off their parents’ record collections and digging into the possibilities of rhyming over breaks like the Honey Drippers’ “Impeach the President” all the while immersing themselves in the imperfections and dust-laden loops and interludes of early funk and soul albums.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]