There has been a lot of talk recently about impeachment and it is about time that we had a more analytic look at this arcane procedure.

Section 4 of Article II of the Constitution provides that removal of the President, the Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be accomplished by impeachment for, and conviction of, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Having said that, the Founders got tight-lipped and decided to leave it to future generations to sort out exactly what acts are proscribed and the Founders ---the little devils---" were careful not to make things easy for us by providing answers or even hints. It seems reasonable, however, to classify treason and bribery as major crimes which would warrant removal from office. Less clear is what a "high crime" might be, but the very term "high crime" evokes visions of criminals hanging from trees, being boiled in oil, being beheaded or being burned at the stake. So, a "high crime" must be a rather serious matter since it is lumped together with"treason and bribery" which, by definition (other high crimes), are impeachable offenses.

That brings us to "misdemeanors." The Founders really threw us a curve ball on this one. A "misdemeanor" is described by Webster as a crime less than a felony or a crime that is not punishable by death or imprisonment in a state penitentiary. Assuming that we know what a felony is, we still get into trouble because misdemeanors are minor misdeeds which are not worthy of serious concern, Yet they are classified among the most serious of crimes (treason and bribery). This is a lot of fuss to make over a minor wrong. Further analysis is best left to the next generation of law school graduates to sort out, but, in the meanwhile, scholars are left to determine whether the Founders meant to deal with "other high crimes and other misdemeanors" or "other high crimes as well as misdemeanors." What is a "high" crime anyhow ? Is there an offense called a "low crime?" It looks very much as if the Founders left a large part of their mission unaccomplished. Nevertheless, we proceed now to a consideration of impeachment itself.

The Constitution provides for the removal from office of public officials who have committed certain types of offenses while in office. This is done by a process known as impeachment. Impeachment is said to be merely an accusation brought by the House of Representatives. What does "impeachment" mean? Until recently, "impeachment" was commonly thought to be an act removing a public officer from his/her position. Now we learn that it is not a process for removal from office, but it is only an accusation which must be tried as in a court by the Senate. Removal is effected by conviction.

The impeachment proceeding is, indeed, a strange one---one that would seem to fly in the face of the fairness that our governmental system demands. Let us have a look at that proceeding which, for the purpose of simplicity, assumes that the accused is the President of the United States. How fair is the impeachment process?

At the outset, it should be noted that the proceeding is inherently unfair to the accused because the awesome

power of all three branches of the government is arrayed against him. The accusation is embodied in articles of impeachment which are brought by the House of Representatives and submitted to the Senate for trial. No pretense is made that the Government is neutral; it is, in fact, a party to the proceeding. Sitting in the same chamber with his accusers is the United States Senate which will act as a jury, charged with the duty of determining guilt or innocence. The Senate is also part of the legislative branch of government. The Senate's deliberations are conducted in secrecy although individual Senators manage to"leak" information to the press. The Senate is bound only by the rules which it has promulgated for itself. Nothing that the Senate does is subject to review. Finally, the Chief Justice, a part of the Judicial Branch, will preside over the trial, but the Senate is not bound by any decisions which the Chief Justice may make regarding the conduct of the trial.

The accused gets only one break in this set-up: Article I, Section 3(6) of the Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present in order to convict instead of a mere majority. The Constitution makes no provision for legal counsel to represent the President.

The impeachment process implicates this nation's policy forbidding discrimination against women on the basis of sex, but, except for Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg, not a single woman is on the Supreme Court! There are a few women sitting on the various Federal Courts of Appeals as well as a disproportionately small number sitting on the Federal District Court benches. In the Executive branch, there is usually a small number of women Cabinet members. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives of whom 58 are women and 100 Senators of whom 9 are women.

From these numbers, it is readily apparent that women in the Federal service do not have the same opportunities as men. To illustrate these facts, one need only ask why no woman in Federal service has ever been impeached. No one has yet explained why, as the rancor and partisan bickering in the halls of Congress becomes more strident, the accused's popularity increases and his job performance rating escalates. It is obvious that, in order to succeed in the public service, a budding politician simply must have himself impeached. One thing seems to be certain: if a politician can get himself/herself impeached without incurring the penalty of removal from office, he/she will have realized the office holder's dream---name recognition!

If you were to ask a woman who holds high Federal office if she would seize the opportunity to be impeached if it were offered to her, her answer would probably be a resounding "YES!" Surely women can, with a few exceptions, commit the same crimes as men and are just as entitled to be impeached as are men. Women can even participate in the broadcast of pornography just as the Republican House of Representatives did in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Why, then, have there been no impeachment trials of women? Where is NOW when you need it? It is past the time when people will tolerate such blatant discrimination. It must stop now! Let the impeachment trials of women begin and let us look to Madam LaFarge as our role model.

return to top