Impeachment
Executive summary
Impeachment is the Constitution’s political tool for charging and removing federal civil officers for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," with the House of Representatives holding the sole power to bring charges and the Senate the sole power to try them [1]. In practice the framework set by the framers has been shaped by precedent, committee practice, and partisan politics: more than 60 impeachment inquiries have been opened but only 21 officials formally impeached and eight removed by the Senate [2] [3].
1. Constitutional framework: who does what and why
The Constitution vests the House with the exclusive authority to impeach (formally charge) federal officials and the Senate with the exclusive authority to try those impeachments, with conviction requiring a two‑thirds Senate vote and sanctions limited to removal and potential disqualification from future office; criminal liability remains possible in ordinary courts afterward [1] [3].
2. How impeachment begins: triggers, committees, and articles
Impeachment frequently starts either when a lawmaker introduces a resolution or when the House votes to authorize an inquiry, and modern practice routes most inquiries through standing or special committees—often the Judiciary Committee—which investigate and then draft Articles of Impeachment if a majority so votes [4] [5]. In recent decades committees commonly rely on outside investigations or prior criminal findings as the evidentiary backbone for Articles, especially in judicial impeachments [5].
3. The Senate as a High Court: trial mechanics and roles
When the House transmits Articles to the Senate, the Senate "sits as a High Court of Impeachment" to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote; House managers act as prosecutors, the Senate acts as jurors, and in presidential cases the Chief Justice presides over the trial [3]. Senate rules govern procedure and can be changed by majority vote, affecting witness access, presentation time, and the pace of deliberations—meaning the form of a trial can be highly contingent on partisan control [6].
4. Standards, scope, and legal ambiguities
While treason and bribery have clearer meanings, the catchall "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" lacks a single legal definition and has been developed through practice and precedent, leaving the substantive standard to political judgment by members of Congress rather than a judicially enforceable rule [1] [7]. The Constitution provides no fixed standard of proof, and historical practice shows senators and representatives apply differing evidentiary thresholds and political calculations when deciding guilt [7].
5. Historical record: rare, consequential, and often partisan
Impeachment has been used sparingly at the presidential level—three presidents were impeached—and more broadly against judges and other civil officers; of more than 60 initiated proceedings only 21 impeachments resulted and only eight removals have occurred by Senate conviction, underscoring both restraint and the difficulty of securing the two‑thirds threshold [2] [3]. High‑profile cases—from Andrew Johnson’s 1868 trial to 20th and 21st century impeachments—show how impeachment intersects with partisan power struggles, policy disputes, and institutional norms [8] [9].
6. Institutional limits, judicial nonintervention, and unresolved questions
Courts have generally treated impeachment as a political question outside judicial review, meaning Congress sets its own procedures and the accused has limited judicial recourse [10]. Open questions persist—including the scope of punishable conduct under "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the propriety of trial committees versus full‑Senate trials, and whether uniform standards like "beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply—matters left to political actors and precedent rather than settled law [7] [11].
7. Bottom line: a constitutional safeguard shaped by politics
Impeachment remains the Constitution’s primary non‑criminal mechanism to hold federal officers accountable, calibrated by a House power to accuse and a Senate role to convict or acquit, but its effectiveness depends on congressional will, political context, and evolving precedent rather than a single legal test—making it as much a tool of constitutional governance as it is a theater of political judgment [1] [3] [5].