Should members of Congress impeach Donald Trump? The billionaire Tom Steyer thinks so. He stars in TV ads calling for impeachment and has set up a “Need to Impeach” campaign to build national support for removing the president. The House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, doesn’t think so. She says talking about impeachment is “a gift to Republicans”. The former Senate majority leader Harry Reid also doesn’t think so. “I’ve been through impeachment,” he said, “and they’re not pleasant.”



So who is right?



Facing Trump, a historian appeals to America's soul: 'I think we'll survive' Read more

In their terrific, accessible, and thoughtful new book, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, the Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and the constitutional lawyer Joshua Matz do better than offering a simple yes or no: they give us a framework for thinking about the question. Tribe and Matz argue that too many people think of impeachment as a mechanical process: if there are “high crimes and misdemeanors”, then there must be impeachment. They disagree. Instead, they argue that anyone thinking about impeachment needs to consider three critical questions: “Is removal permissible?”, “Is removal likely to succeed?”, and “Is removal worth the price the nation will pay?”.



The virtue of this framework is that it is both legal and prudential, and the book provides a helpful guide to impeachment on both counts. Tribe and Matz shine in making constitutional law accessible, and they show both that impeachable offenses extend beyond criminal activities and that not all illegal actions are impeachable. They also explain step-by-step how the process works, from impeachment by the House of Representatives to a trial in the Senate, with the chief justice of the supreme court presiding. Along the way, they point out amusing anecdotes. For example, Chief Justice Rehnquist remarked of his limited duties during the trial of Bill Clinton: “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”



Even if impeachment is warranted and even if they get the timing just right, impeachment is still risky

But perhaps the greatest contribution of the book is when Tribe and Matz consider the constitutional and political dilemmas of whether and when to impeach a president. For example, if impeachment proceedings begin too quickly, those pursuing removal risk not having sufficient evidence or adequate public deliberation. And if a hasty impeachment attempt fails, the president might think himself bulletproof – inviting even greater overreach.



Waiting to impeach also has serious risks. While Congress dilly-dallies, a president might continue to engage in dangerous behavior that puts the nation at risk, and a president under the dark cloud of investigation might throw a Hail Mary (like starting a war) in order to boost his popularity. In addition, the simple fact of delay might acculturate people to the bad behavior and in the process normalize the president’s conduct.



Unfortunately for members of Congress, this isn’t a Goldilocks story. Even if impeachment is warranted and even if they get the timing just right, impeachment is still risky. It locks up the White House and Congress in extensive proceedings, preventing them from addressing the nation’s pressing issues. It could potentially reshape the separation of powers, depending on the justifications for impeachment.



Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bill Clinton speaks before the House of Representatives in 1998 after it voted to impeach him. Photograph: Susan Walsh/Associated Press

And it could backfire. Particularly in a polarized era, the president’s supporters might see impeachment as a coup d’etat designed to nullify the outcome of a democratic election – and that might further entrench those opponents into their partisan corner. Indeed, conservative groups are already calling conversation about impeachment a “coup” attempt against Trump – and are using this to mobilize supporters for the midterm elections.



In light of these considerations, will attempting impeachment save the republic from a dangerous president? Will it advance a political movement? Or will it just unleash a tit-for-tat process that results in more polarization, political hardball, and escalating threats?



In the last few decades, “impeachment talk” has been on the rise, with partisans on both sides raising the specter of exercising this grave power more and more frequently. And in a post-Citizens United world, we should expect billionaires on the right and left to try to shape the political landscape in support of impeaching presidents they dislike. If taken to an extreme, the result could be that frequent impeachments will turn the president into a prime minister, and our government into something more like a parliamentary system.



Play Video 5:26 What is the 25th amendment and could it remove Trump? – video explainer

There are alternatives to impeachment. Tribe and Matz discuss the possibility of censure – congressional condemnation of a presidential action. While censure doesn’t remove the president from office, it makes it less likely that bad behavior will serve as precedent for future generations, and it might weaken the president politically. Unfortunately, they say less about vigorous, unrelenting oversight of the executive branch – of investigations that shine the spotlight on wrongdoing while building support for policy reforms. These tools get too little attention when compared with the far flashier process of impeachment.



Which brings us back to debates over Trump. To their great credit, Tribe and Matz didn’t write a legal brief or a political strategy memo. They instead make clear to anyone even contemplating impeachment that the decision to end a presidency isn’t simple or straightforward.