Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the grounds for impeachment and removal of a President in the US Constitution?
Executive summary
The Constitution states the narrow textual grounds for removing a president: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and it vests the House with the sole power to impeach and the Senate to try and convict, with conviction requiring a two‑thirds vote [1] [2]. What counts as “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the text and has been developed through practice, historical commentary, and political judgment [1] [3].
1. The constitutional text: the three enumerated grounds
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution names the bases for removal: treason, bribery, or other “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That phrasing is the operative limit in the text and is repeated across authoritative explanations of the clause [1] [3].
2. Who decides and how: House indictment, Senate trial, two‑thirds to convict
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (analogous to an indictment) and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments; a conviction requires the concurrence of two‑thirds of Senators present, and the Senate’s judgment can remove the officer from office [2] [4].
3. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”: a political, not strictly legal, standard
While treason and bribery have clearer legal meanings, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” lacks a statutory or constitutional definition; scholars and congressional committees have treated it as a broad, political standard that can include serious abuses of office, gross neglect, usurpation of authority, or conduct prejudicial to the public interest—not only ordinary criminal offenses [1] [3] [5].
4. Historical and scholarly development: courts don’t authoritatively define it
Commentators cited by the Library of Congress and legal institutes—such as Joseph Story and later committee reports—explain that the Framers intended the impeachment power to reach both legal crimes and political misbehavior. Judicial review has been limited in this realm; impeachment remains largely a political process shaped by congressional practice and precedent [1] [3].
5. Practical examples: how Congress has operationalized the clause
Past impeachments and committee reports show Congress framing allegations across a spectrum: from statutory crimes (e.g., bribery) to abuses of power and violations of constitutional duty. House investigations and Judiciary Committee analyses have produced articles citing obstruction, abuses of authority, or breaches of the public trust as bases for articles of impeachment—illustrating how “high crimes and misdemeanors” has been applied in practice [6] [7] [8].
6. Limits and remedies: removal and disqualification, not criminal punishment
The American impeachment remedy is remedial rather than penal: judgments are limited to removal from office and possible disqualification from future federal office; impeachment trials in Congress do not themselves impose criminal penalties such as imprisonment [9].
7. Political reality: interpretation is inherently contested
Because the clause lacks a fixed definition, what constitutes an impeachable offense is contested and tends to reflect political judgment. Congressional actors, commentators, and historical precedent sometimes disagree about whether particular conduct crosses the constitutional threshold, and the ultimate check is the political composition and will of the House and the two‑thirds threshold in the Senate [3] [10].
8. What the sources do and don’t say
Available sources consistently cite the three textual grounds and the division of roles between House and Senate [1] [2]. Sources explain that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” has been developed by practice and commentary, and that the process is political rather than judicially defined [1] [3] [9]. Sources do not provide a single statutory definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”; they show that Congress and scholars have operationalized the concept case‑by‑case [3] [5].
9. Takeaway for readers: law, history, and politics collide
The constitutional grounds for presidential removal are textually narrow but substantively broad in application because “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is an intentionally elastic, politically enforced standard. Understanding impeachment therefore requires reading the clause alongside congressional practice, historical commentary, and the political dynamics that determine whether allegations become articles and whether the Senate will convict [1] [6] [8].