What penalties could result if a Senate conviction occurred on the third article?
Executive summary
If the Senate convicts on a third article of impeachment, the Constitution limits formal “judgment” to removal from office and a separate, optional disqualification from holding future federal office; removal follows conviction and disqualification requires a further vote by the Senate [1] [2]. Criminal punishments, fines or imprisonment are not part of the Senate’s judgment in impeachment and remain matters for regular criminal courts; the president cannot pardon a person from the consequences of impeachment judgment [1] [2].
1. What the Constitution authorizes: removal as the ceiling of impeachment judgment
The Constitution and long‑standing Senate practice make clear that the result of conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office; Article I, Section 3 and Article II, Section 4 constrain the “judgment in cases of impeachment” to removal and possible disqualification from future office, distinguishing impeachment from ordinary criminal punishment [1] [2].
2. How removal happens: conviction triggers removal under Senate practice
Legal commentary and Senate precedent have treated removal as effectively automatic upon conviction: because conviction requires a two‑thirds vote, removal follows that vote; historical Senate practice, including the Senate’s treatment in prior trials, supports that removal does not require a separate affirmative act beyond conviction [2].
3. The separate vote: disqualification from future federal office
Beyond removal, the Senate may hold a subsequent, separate vote to disqualify the convicted person from “holding and enjoying any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” That disqualification is discretionary and typically requires only a majority of senators present [1] [2].
4. What the Senate cannot constitutionally do: criminal penalties are outside impeachment
Impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification,” a limitation intended to preserve impeachment’s non‑penal character; imprisonment, fines, or other criminal sanctions are matters for criminal prosecution in courts, not the Senate’s impeachment judgment [2] [1].
5. Pardons and impeachment: executive clemency does not erase impeachment consequences
Because the Constitution treats impeachment judgment as distinct from criminal punishment, the president’s pardon power does not extend to reversing an impeachment conviction or restoring the right to hold office where the Senate has removed and possibly disqualified the person; sources note the president is “constitutionally prevented from granting a pardon to impeached and convicted persons” as to those consequences [1].
6. Practical aftermath: simultaneous or subsequent criminal exposure
A Senate conviction does not shield the individual from ordinary criminal prosecution. Available sources explain impeachment is non‑punitive in the criminal sense and separate criminal charges may be pursued in federal or state courts, subject to ordinary prosecutorial and judicial processes — but those court processes are not described in detail in the current reporting [1] [2]. Not found in current reporting: any description of particular charges, sentencing ranges, or how criminal trials would proceed in a specific hypothetical.
7. Why this matters politically and legally
A conviction and removal are the most immediate, constitutionally mandated consequences the Senate can impose; disqualification adds political exclusion from future federal office. The distinction between impeachment’s limited remedies and the separate criminal system matters because it channels political accountability through Congress while preserving criminal adjudication for courts [2] [1].
Limitations and sources: This analysis relies on constitutional text and explanatory summaries in the provided sources (Wikipedia and Justia commentary) about impeachment judgment and Senate practice [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any novel penalties the Senate could impose beyond removal and disqualification, nor do they give details about subsequent criminal prosecutions in any specific case; those matters would be governed by ordinary criminal law and are not covered in the current reporting [1] [2].