What are the exact procedural steps for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict a president under U.S. law?
Executive summary
The Constitution divides impeachment into two distinct congressional procedures: the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach (formally accuse) by a simple majority after its own inquiry and vote, and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments and convict only upon a two‑thirds vote of Senators present, with removal and possible disqualification as the only constitutional penalties [1] [2] [3].
1. How the House begins and completes an impeachment
The House typically begins with an inquiry—by a committee or the full chamber—that investigates alleged wrongdoing, holds hearings, collects evidence, and may draft articles of impeachment; the Judiciary or a special committee often conducts the detailed work, then reports articles to the full House for debate and a simple‑majority vote to adopt any article, which constitutes an impeachment [4] [2] [5].
2. Selecting managers and transmitting articles to the Senate
Once articles are adopted, the House names managers—members who act as prosecutors—and formally transmits the articles to the Senate, an act that triggers the Senate’s duty to “sit as a Court of Impeachment” and to organize a trial under rules it adopts for that proceeding [3] [2] [6].
3. How the Senate conducts the trial for a President
For a presidential trial the Constitution requires that the Chief Justice preside over the Senate’s proceedings; Senators must be on oath or affirmation when trying the impeachment, the House managers present the case and the impeached officer may be defended by counsel, and the Senate decides procedural matters—witnesses, evidence, and debate—under its own trial rules [7] [3] [8].
4. The vote to convict and the consequences
Conviction requires the “concurrence of two‑thirds of the Members present” on any article; upon conviction the only constitutional consequences the Senate may impose are removal from office and, by further vote, disqualification from holding future federal office, while criminal liability or other sanctions remain matters for ordinary courts and prosecutors [9] [2] [1].
5. Where Senate procedure and constitutional text leave room for politics and variation
The Constitution provides the high‑level framework but leaves procedural detail to the two chambers: the Senate’s trial procedures have been fashioned by precedent and rules (for example, whether to take live testimony or create trial committees), the Supreme Court has deemed many procedural disputes nonjusticiable—meaning political branches decide their own rules—and historical practice shows both flexibility and political judgment shaped outcomes [7] [2] [10].
6. Precedent, practical obstacles and unresolved questions
Past practice underscores constraints and ambiguities: the House’s standards for what constitutes “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are not fixed by text and vary with political judgment; the Senate has tried officials after they left office, but jurisdictional and timing questions have been litigated in political and scholarly debates rather than settled law; thus many procedural choices—committee use, evidence rules, whether a former official can be tried—are governed by precedent, Senate rules, and political calculation more than rigid constitutional formulae [1] [2] [4].
7. Alternative perspectives and implicit incentives
Legal scholars and institutional sources agree on the core steps—House investigation and simple‑majority impeachment, Senate trial with Chief Justice presiding for presidents, two‑thirds to convict—but they diverge on normative questions: some emphasize impeachment as a constitutional check on abuse, others warn it is inherently political and thus best used sparingly; institutional incentives (House majorities seek accountability; Senate supermajorities limit removals) mean procedure and outcome often reflect partisan arithmetic as much as strictly legal standards [6] [10] [7].