Introduction:
1. As stated by the Constitution, “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the
United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Throughout the history of the
United States, the impeachment process has only occurred a handful of times, including
that of presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. While these impeachments had their
similarities, there were countless differences between the two. For instance, the Senate
had a more just reason to try Johnson on impeachment than they did for Clinton, despite
both attempts having eventually failed. Accordingly, Johnson’s impeachment impacted
the Reconstruction process in a positive way for the radical republicans.
2. According to the United States Constitution, the Senate, as part of the Legislative branch,
holds the check and balance power of impeaching the President. Only twice in the
country’s history has a President’s ability to properly serve the nation ever been brought
into question. Andrew Johnson, the Vice President who was brought into office after the
tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was charged with abuse of power in terms of,
what the Constitution calls, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Johnson’s poor leadership
and self-interest deeply affected the period of Reconstruction, as it was in the time that
the country needed a strong leader the most that he failed. Bill Clinton became the second
President to ever have his leadership skills brought into question. He was charged with
abuse of power, perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness-tampering after his
scandalous private affair was publicized. In both trials, the senators that opposed
impeachment and conviction of the presidents made the stronger arguments, for it is
difficult to truly determine what actions qualify for impeachment.
3. Two times in United States history there has been a vote for the impeachment of the
President. The 17th President Andrew Johnson and the 42nd President Bill Clinton have
both been up for impeachment. The two trials were for different reasons, but were the
same in the voting and trial itself. President Johnson heavily opposed the reconstruction
plan that was wanted by both the house and the senate, and forcefully removed Edwin
Stanton from his position, both of which started the call for his impeachment. President
Clinton committed adultery and then was accused of lying while under oath and
obstructing justice which is what forced the some to call for his impeachment. The two
processes had some differences, but were also very similar. While some were split on
whether or not the President should be impeached, Senator Lautenberg and the Honorable
John Sherman were more accurate in their interpretations of each impeachment. The
failure of not succeeding in impeaching President Johnson had a negative effect on
Reconstruction after the Civil War.
Using Evidence:
1. In each impeachment process, those against the impeachment had the better argument,
especially because each president was accused of a crime much more trivial than that stated in
the Constitution. The reasons the Constitution gives for presidential impeachment are for
“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4). Neither
Presidents’ main offenses, the violation of a relatively minor act and sexual misconduct, are on
par with the magnitude of the aforementioned crimes written in the Constitution. In Honor
Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:42 PM
Comment [1]: This is nearly a flawless intro but you also need to comment on the Senator you feel delivers the better argument. Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:50 PM
Comment [2]: Very nicely developed, touching on the specific aspects of the assignment. Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:55 PM
Comment [3]: While some of the phrasing could improve here, you do a nice job asserting your position on the various parts of the assignment. Lyman Trumball’s argument against President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, he questions
exactly what law or constitutional violation the president committed. Trumball stated, “No facts
are shown to sustain such a charge, and the same may be said of the charge of a violation of the
appropriation act of March 2d 1867; and these are all the laws alleged to have been violated.” He
continued saying that if the impeachment went through it would weaken the president by paving
the way for Congress to impeach the president whenever they disagree with him. The opposite
viewpoint, from Honor Sherman, argues at its core that that President Johnson should be
removed mostly because of his failures in office, rather than any crimes he may have committed.
Consequently, Trumball formulated the better argument, against the impeachment, as he gave a
mostly unbiased perspective of the president’s actions and potential lawbreaking, and deduced
that any offenses he did commit were certainly not of the magnitude necessary for impeachment.
Similarity, Senator Lautenberg also argued against impeachment, in President Clinton’s
case, reasoning that his crimes did not match the standards set for impeachment and even then
that there was little reliable evidence. Lautenberg stated, “Our founding fathers meant to set a
very high standard for impeachment. Clearly, the phrase `high Crimes or Misdemeanors' does
not include all crimes… I find the words of George Mason to be compelling. He understood the
phrase to mean `great and dangerous offenses' or `attempts to subvert the Constitution.'”
Undoubtedly, none of Clinton’s offenses met the caliber intended in the Constitution for
presidential impeachment. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to convict President
Clinton on Article II. Lautenberg reveals that the main witnesses testified against the majority of
the president’s misdemeanors. He also reassures, as Trumball did, that if the impeachment went
through for these marginal crimes, it would certainly sway the balance between the executive
branch and the legislative branch of the United States government. On the other hand, Senator
McCain expressed that Clinton’s main offense, sexual misconduct, is also not enough for his
conviction and it is the minor misdemeanors he committed in the resulting trial that should be the
reason for his impeachment. He stated, “I do not desire to sit in judgment of the President's
private misconduct… We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to
faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law.”
However, even these minor crimes that Clinton committed, of perjury and the like, still not
enough to stand on par with crimes such as treason and bribery, which is what the founding
fathers intended to be the caliber necessary to impeach a president. Therefore, Senator
Lautenberg gave the more convincing argument in response to the impeachment of President Bill
Clinton as he noted both the lack of magnitude and evidence required for the conviction, as well
as how it could dramatically shift the powers of the government branches.
2. When Johnson was being tried, John Sherman had the better argument on the basis of his
impeachment. Sherman suggested that Johnson’s actions here were the icing on the cake for the
republicans in congress as he previously caused many nuisances, including “[neglecting] to
protect the loyal people in the rebel States.” On the other hand, Lyman Trumbull argued that
Johnson should not be impeached because “it is charged that Andrew Johnson has violated the
Constitution. The fact may be so, but where is the evidence of it to be found on this record?
Others may, but I cannot find it.” Clearly, Trumbull is unreasonable in his argument because
Johnson obviously acted against the Constitution when he failed to act in accordance with the
Tenure of Office act. However, John Sherman really brought the attention to the fact that since
Johnson acted in such a way against the law implemented by the legislature, Johnson was
“placing in the hands of the President unlimited power over all the officers of the Government.”
Although Johnson was bullied into his impeachment by Congress, he still should have acted in
accordance with the law, regardless of whether or not he thought it was unconstitutional. By
acting against the law, he demonstrated that he was above the law and that he did not have to act
in agreement with it. Thus, Johnson should have been impeached in order to preserve the power
of the legislative branch, and to keep the separation of powers in place. While the better
argument in Johnson’s case was for impeachment, the better argument in Clinton’s case was
against impeachment.
Consequently, Senator Lautenberg had the better argument on the basis of Clinton’s
impeachment. Lautenberg’s argument really showcased the insignificance of Clinton’s crimes on
the basis of the country. While Clinton’s actions were shameful and embarrassing, they were
made on a personal level, rather than a political level, and were not deserving of the
impeachment process. As George Mason once said, high crimes and misdemeanors are defined
as “great and dangerous offenses or attempts to subvert the Constitution.” Accordingly, Clinton’s
actions were clearly not made to denounce the Constitution. Additionally, as Lautenberg
asserted, there have been far worse scandals in U.S. history that have not provoked the
impeachment process, such as President Grant’s Whiskey scandal and the Teapot Dome scandal
in the Harding administration. Thus, Clinton’s actions were not impeachment worthy, as
supported by Lautenberg’s argument.
3.
In both impeachment cases there is an argument for and against impeachment of the
President. The stronger argument during Clinton's impeachment hearings were those against
impeachment. The view from Senator Lautenberg that Clinton should not have been impeached
and his reasoning for it was more accurate than his fellow senator. Lautenberg argued that
President Clinton did break the law and while he should be punished, impeachment was not the
answered. He said, "In my view, this case does not involve efforts to subvert the Constitution,
and the national interest will not be served by removing the President from office" (Lautenberg
2). President Clinton never put the nation in jeopardy and also never tried to subvert the
constitution. While what he did may have been morally wrong, impeachment was not a suitable
punishment for such a small matter that did not affect the country on a national level. The
argument made by Lautenberg is contested by his fellow senate member, John McCain. McCain
does say that he feels bad for wanting to impeach President Clinton; he believes it is a suitable
punishment for him. While McCain makes some good points in his argument, he too often
addresses his remorse for voting against the President, and also often rationalizes for the
President's actions. McCain’s argument was weak while Lautenberg was strong.
While the argument to impeach President Clinton was weak, the argument for
impeaching President Johnson was strong. President Clinton did not hurt the nation with his
actions, while President Johnson put the country in danger and broke a direct law passed by
congress to limit his power. The Honorable John Sherman argues, "Instead of cooperating with
Congress, by execution of laws passed by it, he has thwarted and delayed their execution, and
sought to bring the laws and the legislative power into contempt" (Sherman 1). Sherman argues
that President's Johnson's actions were inexcusable and were certainly enough for his
impeachment. Although he missed impeachment, it was one vote away from the two-thirds
majority needed for him to be impeached. While impeaching President Johnson was popular
among Congress, some argued that his impeachment was not needed. The Honorable Lyman
Trumbull argued that Johnson did not break or violate any laws and therefore should not be
impeached. This argument is weak because it is fairly obvious that the removal of Edward
Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:45 PM
Comment [4]: Very strong use of evidence to build your argument about the Senator with the best position. However, consider working in McCain as you worked in Trumbull. Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:58 PM
Comment [5]: Nice job referencing McCain but include some quotations from his document. Stanton was a clear violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which was made to limit Johnson's
power. This violation was seen by many in congress as the President abusing his power and the
need for his impeachment.
4. The senator with the better argument in the Johnson impeachment case was Senator
John Sherman, who was in favor of impeachment. He believed that President Johnson had failed
to protect citizens loyal to the Union in the south, and instead was looking out for the best
interests of the ex-Confederates and ex-Confederate sympathizers, who bullied these loyal
citizens and made life difficult for them. According to Sherman, “…he (Johnson) has neglected
to protect loyal people in the rebel States, so that assassination is organized all over those States,
as a political power to murder, banish and maltreat loyal people, and to destroy their property.”
This is a prime example of when a president misuses and/or abuses his power and is liable to the
possibility of impeachment. The senator with the viewpoint that countered this was Lyman
Trumbull, whose viewpoint was not as powerful. All that Trumbull could say in Johnson’s
defense was, “To convict and depose the Chief Magistrate of a great nation, when his guilt was
not made palpable by the record, and for insufficient cause, would be fraught with far greater
danger to the future of the country than can arise from leaving Mr. Johnson in office…”
Trumbull was saying that there was not enough evidence to convict Johnson, and even if there
was (meaning his original viewpoint was wrong), it would be more beneficial to the nation to
leave Johnson in office than to impeach him. This is incorrect because there was enough
evidence to convict Johnson (he almost was) and because a new leader would have assumed the
role as president, hopefully someone a tad more competent than Johnson.
Compare/Contrast:
1. As mentioned before, both of the impeachments of Johnson and Clinton were similar in
multiple ways. In both cases, the majority of the Republican party was leading the charge against
the president. Accordingly, the impeachments were more of political attacks than actual “high
crimes and misdemeanors.” In Johnson’s case, Congress had implemented an act in order to
“bully” him into acting against the law, allowing them to try him for impeachment. In Clinton’s
case, his impeachment was based on his personal life and not his political actions. Hence, both
impeachment trials were brought about on not very significant charges. Despite this similarity,
these impeachments had more differences than they did similarities.
Thus, the impeachments of Johnson and Clinton had countless differences between them.
To start, Clinton was way more favored and liked by the people than Johnson. Hence, Clinton
was elected to office twice, while Johnson was never elected. Accordingly, Congress looked
upon Johnson’s failure to act in accordance with the law as an opportunity to satisfy their desire
to get rid of him. On the other hand, when Clinton was tried for impeachment, many people were
shocked and disappointed in his actions, but they did not think that it was worthy of
impeachment. Thus, Johnson missed impeachment by only 1 vote, whereas Clinton missed
impeachment by 12 votes and 17 votes (he was tried on two different charges). Clearly, the
impeachment processes of Johnson and Clinton differed in various ways.
Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:58 PM
Comment [6]: Again, GREAT job referencing the counterclaim to help YOUR argument but include a quotation or two next time. Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 1:42 PM
Comment [7]: Ok, this is some powerful stuff. You have a clear position and work in evidence from BOTH senators to build your argument. Well done! Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:44 PM
Comment [8]: Very nicely developed compare/contrast section. You bat the two impeachments back and forth seamlessly as you should the similarities/differences.