What specific articles of impeachment are contained in H.Res.537 and H.Res.939?
Executive summary
H.Res.537 and H.Res.939 are House resolutions introduced by Rep. Al Green to impeach President Donald J. Trump; H.Res.537 centers on an asserted unilateral use of military force and usurpation of Congress’s war powers framed as an abuse of presidential power (Article I) [1], while H.Res.939 advances multiple enumerated articles accusing the president of a broader pattern of abuse including incitement of violence and intimidation of federal judges (including a named Article II) and a charge that he called for the execution of lawmakers [2] [3].
1. H.Res.537 — Article focused on usurpation of war powers and abuse of presidential authority
H.Res.537 presents its core article as an abuse of presidential power by “unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice,” asserting that such conduct usurps Article I war powers and “devolves American democracy into authoritarianism,” language mirrored in the resolution’s text identifying that conduct as an impeachable “high crime and misdemeanor” [4] [1]. The bill text published on Congress.gov and mirrored on GovTrack frames Article I specifically around the President’s purported disregard for Article I, Section 8 authority to declare war, alleging an unauthorized attack and associating that act with threats to democratic norms [4] [1]. The public record accessible through those legislative text repositories is the primary source for the precise allegation and the constitutional theory underlying the charge [4] [1].
2. H.Res.939 — Multiple articles alleging incitement, intimidation of judges, and calls for violence against lawmakers
H.Res.939 is presented as a multi-article impeachment resolution that opens with a sweeping assertion that the President is “an abuser of Presidential power” whose conduct promotes violence, hate, and the undermining of democracy, and the resolution “that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate” [2]. The formal text and summaries explicitly identify at least two discrete formulations: an article accusing the President of calling for the execution of lawmakers — characterized in the resolution as “a reckless and flagrant abuse of Presidential power” — and an Article II charging abuse of presidential power to intimidate federal judges in violation of separation of powers and judicial independence [2] [3]. Official PDFs and GovTrack entries list Article I in H.Res.939 as similar to H.Res.537’s theme — abuse by disregarding the separation of powers and usurping Congress’s war powers — while later articles in the same resolution articulate violence- and intimidation-related misconduct [1] [3].
3. Overlap, distinctions, and procedural posture
Both resolutions deploy the constitutional theory that certain unilateral uses of force and other abuses of office constitute impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors,” producing overlapping claims about usurpation of Article I powers (H.Res.537’s Article I and H.Res.939’s Article I) [1] [5]. H.Res.939 extends beyond that single constitutional theory by explicitly alleging threats to lawmakers and efforts to intimidate the judiciary as separate, articulable articles — text and press materials from Rep. Green’s office and the official bill PDF make those discrete accusations evident [3] [6]. Procedurally, the House has recorded roll-call activity related to both resolutions: H.Res.537 was subject to a tabling vote recorded on GovTrack/Clerk pages (roll call context) [7] [8], and H.Res.939 faced a motion-to-table vote reported in the House Clerk’s roll call 322 where the motion passed [9].
4. Interpretation, political intent, and limits of the public record
Supporters framed these resolutions as urgent constitutional remedies to alleged executive abuses, a position echoed in advocacy groups and Rep. Green’s statements [6] [10], while opponents and many Democratic colleagues argued for fuller investigations before advancing impeachment — an implicit political calculus reflected in votes to table or delay [10] [7]. The legislative texts on Congress.gov, GovTrack, and the Government Publishing Office are the authoritative public sources for the exact article language provided here [4] [1] [11], and reporting and advocacy materials document the sponsor’s rationale and downstream political reactions [6] [10]. If additional, line-by-line article headings or later amendments exist beyond the cited PDFs and Congress.gov entries, that level of granular detail is not contained in the provided sources and therefore cannot be asserted here.