Fact check: What are the grounds for impeachment in the US Constitution?

1. Why the Sources Yield No Definitive Answer — Reporting the Gap

The materials supplied repeatedly fail to state the constitutional grounds for impeachment, producing a reporting gap that shapes public debate: several pieces cover political calls to impeach or propose reforms without citing the constitutional clause that actually defines grounds, leaving readers with political rhetoric rather than legal clarity ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The absence of direct citation to the Constitution in these analyses means the conversation is driven by partisan claims—calls for impeachment, expulsions, and reform proposals—rather than a shared legal baseline, which complicates both public understanding and media coverage ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Confusion Between Impeachment and Congressional Expulsion — A Persistent Mix‑Up

The supplied analyses highlight a recurring misconception: commentators conflate impeachment with the House’s power to expel its own members, whereas the articles note that expulsion requires a two‑thirds majority in the chamber and is a distinct remedy often cited when political leaders call for action against a Representative ^[1]. This conflation fuels misstatements in public discourse; political actors invoke impeachment language but sometimes mean expulsion, which has different procedural thresholds and implications. The reviews show that this conflation is common in political coverage and exploited rhetorically ^[1].

3. Political Incentives Shape How “Grounds” Are Framed — Partisan Use of Impeachment Talk

The analyses show political figures using calls for impeachment as partisan tools, framing allegations in broad moral terms rather than legal categories, which shifts attention away from constitutional standards toward political theater ^{[1] [3]}. Coverage of candidates’ stances and proposals centers on whether impeachment is being advocated, not on the constitutional elements that would ground such proceedings, suggesting media and political actors amplify strategic framing that benefits particular agendas rather than clarifying legal thresholds ^[3].

4. Comparative and Foreign References Muddy the U.S. Picture — Beware Cross‑Constitutional Leap

One analysis introduces a foreign constitutional rule—the Philippines’ “one‑year bar” on re‑bringing impeachment—which is unrelated to U.S. law but appears in coverage and fact‑checks, illustrating how comparative references can confuse domestic legal understanding if not clearly contextualized ^[2]. The presence of such foreign examples in the supplied materials shows how journalists and commentators may pull from international practice when domestic sources are thin, but this practice risks misinforming readers unless distinctions are explicitly drawn between different constitutional systems ^[2].

5. Reform Proposals Highlight Institutional Friction Rather Than Grounds

Some supplied analyses focus on proposed legislative or procedural reforms—limits on pardon power or stronger subpoena enforcement—framed as responses to perceived presidential abuses, which underscores that public discussion centers on institutional checks rather than enumerating specific constitutional grounds for impeachment ^{[4] [5]}. These reform proposals reflect an effort to close perceived accountability gaps but do not substitute for a clear statement of grounds; they reveal that political actors prioritize mechanisms and deterrents over the textual grounding of impeachable offenses ^[4].

6. Media Coverage of Candidates Focuses on Positions, Not Constitutional Text

Analyses of campaign coverage show election reporting catalogs candidates’ positions on impeachment without anchoring those positions in constitutional doctrine, which reduces complex constitutional questions to campaign talking points and deprives the public of legal context needed to evaluate whether an allegation meets any constitutional standard ^[3]. This pattern suggests that during campaign cycles, impeachment becomes a policy stance rather than a legal criterion, leaving the foundational legal language unexamined in mainstream coverage ^[3].

7. What This Means for Readers Seeking the “Grounds” Answer — Steps to Clarify

Given that the source materials fail to cite the constitutional text directly, readers seeking precise grounds for impeachment will not find definitive answers in the supplied analyses; the materials instead point to political disputes, expulsion procedures, and reform debates that overshadow textual clarity ^{[1] [3]}. To move from political claims to legal clarity, the analyses imply the need to consult primary legal sources and bipartisan legal commentary rather than relying on campaign reporting or partisan op‑eds that dominate these items ^{[4] [3]}.

8. Bottom Line: Coverage Is Political, Not Constitutional — The Key Omission

The chief finding across the supplied analyses is that coverage prioritizes political maneuvering over constitutional explanation, leaving a substantive omission: none of the analyzed pieces lays out the constitutional grounds for impeachment in a way that settles the question for readers, and comparative or reform items further distract from the core legal language ^{[1] [2] [4]}. This omission matters because it permits partisan narratives to define impeachment debates; remedying it requires focused reporting on constitutional text and authoritative legal interpretation rather than continued emphasis on political calls and proposed institutional fixes (p