Those who supported Article IV were more interested in making a statement about the abuse of executive power in Cambodia than in whether Nixon’s abuses were comparable to those of other presidents. Representative Wayne Owens, Democrat of Utah, hoped “we will set down a standard for presidents and future wars, that something positive will come out” of the sad proceeding.

In the end, Mr. Rodino’s desire for consensus held sway. When the roll was called on Article IV, every Republican voted against it, as did nine of their Democratic colleagues. Only the first three Watergate-related articles were approved. The practical effect was to obscure the deeper constitutional issues that were raised by the administration’s misconduct. Or as those who had supported Article IV put it: “By failing to recommend the impeachment of President Nixon for the deception of Congress and the American public as to an issue as grave as the systematic bombing of a neutral country, we implicitly accept the argument that any ends — even those a president believes are legitimate — justify unconstitutional means.”

After the fact, you could reasonably argue that the particulars of the impeachment articles made no practical difference — that what mattered was that the Judiciary Committee had found President Nixon guilty and unfit for office, a finding that led him to resign before the House of Representatives commenced its full impeachment deliberations. Yet by failing to address the lawless bombing of Cambodia and the tragic results, the committee framed how the events of that time have been remembered.

Ask anyone under the age of 50 about Nixon’s presidency and the first word is likely to be “Watergate.” The second is “impeachment.” Ask what this is about and the probable answer is “something about a break-in and a cover-up.” Shameful as Watergate was, it was not nearly so serious a violation of law as the covert bombing of Cambodia. One of America’s foremost historians, Henry Steele Commager, observed that Nixon had won a strategic victory “in the realm of public and perhaps even congressional opinion” by successfully “concentrating attention on Watergate and its associated chicaneries.”

After three years in which the Trump administration has run roughshod over constitutional procedures and individual rights, the need for a broader response seems clear. This is essential, even if the Senate Republicans behave as expected and vote against the removal of the president. For now, the challenge for House committees is to use the mechanism, providing by the founding fathers, to reassert abiding principles of democratic governance.

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.