Using Evidence: Joe Dwyer 9/21/14 12:50 PM Comment [2]: Very nicely developed, touching on the specific aspects of the assignment.

Transcription

1 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 17 th President Andrew Johnson and the 42 nd 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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5