Last October, I published an article to The Liberty Hawk called Impeachment, The Rusted Hammer. I attempted to present my understanding of impeachment according to the vision of the founders. The main thrust of the article was my argument that Congress has used its power of impeachment far less than the founders would have expected. And, that current views on impeachment have “narrowed the scope of impeachable offenses so thinly that impeachment, let alone conviction, is virtually impossible.”

Since that time, the House of Representatives has conducted and concluded an impeachment inquiry and voted in the affirmative to impeach Donald Trump. This has invited further perspective on the merits of impeachment and removal at The Liberty Hawk and has opened up a far more substantive and intriguing debate than we have seen in both the Left and Right segments of mainstream media.

The Contrast of Zealotry and Pragmatism

Recently, we have seen two excellent pieces published on this website. The first article, Should Trump Be Removed from Office, was submitted by Josh Lewis. In it, he crafted an intelligent and prudential response to the viral article from Christianity Today, calling for the removal of Trump from office. The second, Principles Should Trump Prudence, was submitted by Scott Howard, in a direct answer to Josh’s article.

I find the question of measuring principles and prudence an interesting and intriguing consideration. On the one hand, some zealots are so concerned with staking out a piece of ground to die on, they fail to ensure their principles endure. On the other hand, some pragmatists embrace prudence to such an extent, they become, to paraphrase Robert Frost, too broadminded to take their own side in a quarrel.

While I definitely have a zealous streak, I try to embrace the moderating influence of prudence and pragmatism as much as possible. I love my principles so much that I have an earnest desire to see them applied. I have not embraced the role of a political writer only to pontificate on vagaries and content myself with the sound of my voice.

However, my stances on Trumpism and my willingness to occupy a vast and lonely wilderness of contrarian discontent speak to the importance I place on ensuring I do not sacrifice principles to be “relevant.”

I sense healthy doses of both principle and prudence in the writings of Josh Lewis and Scott Howard, which is why their discussion is so interesting. There’s isn’t a debate of extremes, but a conversation on emphasis.

To Summarize Their Views

Since Josh’s article was a response to Christianity Today’s article, it mostly deals with whether or not moral character should be the main criteria for removing a president from office.

Josh’s main contention boils down to one of prudence. If not only Donald Trump, but virtually every American president, has abused power and violated the Constitution to some extent, can impeachment and attempted removal really be justified in all possible cases? Especially given the evident disruption to the body politic that occurs as part of such an attempt. If the answer is no, Josh contends, then other political factors must be taken into context, and Congress must make hard but necessary choices.

He also suggests that, absent overwhelming popular support, removal creates further division and dysfunction. Josh argues we should leave the question of presidential office to the election process in all except the most extreme of circumstances.

Scott’s dissent from this premise amounts to one that concerns itself with consistency and precedent. He is uncomfortable with an arbitrary approach towards deciding what actions qualify as impeachable. And, he correctly points out that a continual failure by Congress to champion the checks and balances that should moor a president to constitutional norms has led to a steady increase in arbitrary and imperial behavior from the chief executive over the last hundred years.

Scott is concerned that choosing to ignore behavior that meets the minimum criteria for impeachment, based on prudential consideration of political realities, creates a precedent for future behavior. Scott’s argument essentially amounts to one that contends we should look for reasons to use what checks and balances are available to rein in the presidency, such as impeachment, instead of approaching their use with an overabundance of caution.

I Appreciate Aspects of Both Perspectives

As I made the case in my article back in October, I think it has been a serious error for the impeachment power to go largely unused over the history of our republic. And, it is flabbergasting, given the many actions of our more abusive presidents, that there has never been a president removed through a vote in the Senate.

On the other hand, the actual removal of a president has a high threshold because the founders were rightly concerned with the implications of removing the chief executive at a whim. The US Constitution created the office of the presidency as part of a separate branch of government. If Congress were to attempt removal on a perpetual basis, it would amount to an attempt to subjugate the presidency.

However, my perspective is subtly different from both Josh’s and Scott’s. First, as the founders did, I place different thresholds of support for impeachment and removal. Second, I view impeachable offenses in a slightly different way. My view is one that allows for a consideration of political realities without running the risk of consenting to further presidential abuse.

Impeachment or Censure?

It is my view that, since the founders allowed for impeachment to occur by a simple majority in the House of Representatives, impeachment amounts to the constitutional process for presidential censure. As many well know, the current process for censure has no specific constitutional authorization, and is not found anywhere in its framework.

I contend the current process for censure is a device that has been created by Congress to voice disapproval of presidential behavior without facing the political consequences of initiating a trial in the Senate. It’s a hollow act, designed more to allow representatives to distance themselves from inappropriate presidential behavior and safeguard their own positions of power than to actually levy consequences for presidential abuse.

Further, the adoption of this empty censure process frustrates the broader purpose of impeachment. As I pointed out in my article from last October, Benjamin Franklin argued impeachment should be “a regular and peaceable inquiry,” that allows the guilty to be “duly punished” while the innocent can be “restored to the confidence of the public.”

This is the basis of my views of impeachment as well as to what constitutes impeachable offenses. In my view, impeachment and removal are ultimately questions of trust and legitimacy. And, impeachable acts amount to anything that demeans the office, violates the public trust, or betrays the oath of office.

A Crisis of Trust and Legitimacy

If a simple majority of representatives grows so concerned with the actions of the president that they are willing to vote on articles of impeachment, it represents a clear crisis of trust and legitimacy in the office of the presidency.

An open and extensive trial in the Senate should follow such a crisis. Such a trial should ascertain whether the actions in question amount to a severe demeaning of the office of the president, a clear violation of the public trust, or a blatant betrayal of the president’s oath of office. The Senators must then consider the evidence while also considering the prevailing affections of the people as they vote whether to remove or retain the president.

All this bears in mind the underlying purpose of the impeachment powers: to safeguard the legitimacy of the office. Impeachment represents an affirmation that a president’s actions, or at least the appearance of his actions, has damaged the standing of the office. A Senate trial represents the open inquiry and deliberation that lays bare the realities of the alleged abuse to the American people. The vote to either remove or acquit is a final decision to ascertain how best to restore the standing of the office.

The higher threshold for removal suggests it should only be the correct path towards restoring the trust and legitimacy of the presidency in the most extreme of cases. But this assumes a proper Senate trial upon which the people can base their decisions in a forthcoming election.

A Principled and Prudent Approach

From this standpoint, I believe both principles and prudence can have a proper place in our considerations of impeachment and removal. Josh’s point that most presidents have abused the office and violated the Constitution suggests that few presidents have concerned themselves with the consequences of such abuse. And, the fact that continued expansion and use of executive power has not been halted, or even slowed, by the measure of the extra-constitutional device of censure suggests impeachment should indeed be the proper action to signal disapproval of abusive acts by the president.

By separating the threshold of impeachment from that of removal, as the founders clearly intended, we can be constant and deliberate in the reaction to presidential abuse. We could stand firm on principles regardless of political realities.

If every president knew he would face the stain of impeachment on his legacy for engaging in abuse, such abuses would cease to become the status quo. If every president knew he would face a trial in the Senate in the wake of abuse, laying bear his actions before the people, even the most unscrupulous of presidents would mind their actions, being compelled by their selfish desires to hold on to power.

With principles firmly championed by such an approach to impeachment, we could then give way to prudence in the consideration for removal. With restoring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the office as the goal, we could consider the alleged abuses of a president, laid bare in a Senate trial, in the context of the political consequences for removing a president.

The herculean threshold required for removal stands as a bulwark against whimsical overturning of the popular voice. The chances of the Senate removing a president if his actions divide the country down the middle are virtually zero. An evident loss of trust and legitimacy in the eyes of the people would be required to muster such a decisive majority as is needed for the removal of the president.

Failure to Remove Does Not Constitute a Failure of the Impeachment Process

A president who avoids removal but whose trial fails to acquit his character is still a president who has faced the stain of impeachment. He is still one who has had his actions laid bare to the public. And, he must face a forthcoming election with determined enemies (those who supported removal) and a public not wholly satisfied that he is trustworthy.

As well, a president who avoids removal and whose trial clearly acquits his character has recovered his legitimacy. The process has freed him from the cloud of uncertainty the allegations had cast upon him. And, he is now free to exercise the office as an effective and trusted chief executive.

Safeguard From Abuse, Uphold Integrity

So, my view is simple, and I believe agreeable, to both the demands of principle and prudence. In impeachment, be principled, aggressive, and unforgiving of all forms of abuse. In removal, be prudent, pragmatic, and thoughtful of political reality. Safeguarding our republic from the abuse of political office and upholding the integrity of political office do not have to be mutually exclusive ideas, and should go hand in hand.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

