Which Two Presidents Have Been Impeached

Two Presidents Impeached: Understanding the Process and its Implications

The impeachment process, a cornerstone of American democracy, is a weighty matter designed to hold the highest officials accountable for potential misconduct. While the power of impeachment is rarely invoked, its historical use provides crucial insights into the complexities of presidential power and the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system of government. This article delves into the impeachments of the only two U.S. Presidents to have faced this process: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton in 1998. We will explore the circumstances surrounding each impeachment, examining the charges, the political climate, and the lasting consequences of these landmark events.

Understanding the Impeachment Process

Before delving into the specifics of each impeachment, it's crucial to understand the constitutional framework governing this process. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution outlines the grounds for impeachment: “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.”

This clause leaves the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" deliberately vague, allowing for interpretation based on the context of each case. The process itself is bi-cameral, involving both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The House's Role: The House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate impeachment proceedings. This involves investigations, hearings, and a vote on whether to impeach (formally accuse) the president. A simple majority vote is required to impeach. This is akin to an indictment in a criminal trial.

The Senate's Role: If the House votes to impeach, the process moves to the Senate, which acts as the court of impeachment. The Senate holds a trial, with Senators acting as jurors. Evidence is presented, witnesses are called, and the president is given the opportunity to defend themselves. A two-thirds vote in the Senate is required for conviction and removal from office. This high threshold reflects the gravity of removing a duly elected president.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868)

Andrew Johnson's presidency followed the tumultuous Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His policies toward Reconstruction, the process of reintegrating the Confederate states into the Union, were a major point of contention with the Radical Republicans in Congress. Johnson, a former Democrat, clashed vehemently with the Republican-dominated Congress over the treatment of former Confederates and the rights of newly freed slaves.

The primary charge against Johnson was violating the Tenure of Office Act, a law passed by Congress that prohibited the president from removing certain officials, including cabinet members, without Senate approval. Johnson dismissed Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, in defiance of this act. This action, perceived by many as an attempt to obstruct the Radical Republican agenda, became the focal point of the impeachment proceedings.

The House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson in February 1868. The Senate trial, which lasted for several weeks, was highly partisan. While the evidence against Johnson regarding the Tenure of Office Act was strong, the Republicans lacked the necessary two-thirds majority for conviction. Johnson was acquitted by a single vote, highlighting the intense political divisions of the era.

Key takeaways from Johnson's impeachment:

• Political motivation: The impeachment was largely driven by political differences over Reconstruction policy rather than any egregious personal misconduct.
• Narrow escape: Johnson's acquittal was a close call, underscoring the fragility of presidential power when faced with a hostile Congress.
• Legacy of contention: Johnson's impeachment remains a controversial chapter in American history, fueling ongoing debate about the proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The Impeachment of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton (1998)

The impeachment of Bill Clinton stemmed from a very different set of circumstances. Unlike Johnson's impeachment, which focused on constitutional violations, Clinton's centered on perjury and obstruction of justice related to a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.

The investigation began with accusations of sexual harassment against Clinton by Paula Jones. During the deposition for this lawsuit, Clinton denied having an affair with Lewinsky. However, evidence emerged that contradicted his testimony. A special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was appointed to investigate, and his extensive report detailed Clinton's affair and accusations of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on two counts: perjury and obstruction of justice. The articles of impeachment focused specifically on Clinton's false statements under oath regarding his relationship with Lewinsky and his attempts to influence witnesses to provide false testimony.

The Senate trial, like Johnson's, was highly publicized and politically charged. While public opinion was divided, the Senate ultimately failed to convict Clinton on either charge. He remained in office, serving out his second term.

Key takeaways from Clinton's impeachment:

• Moral vs. legal grounds: The impeachment centered on moral failings and questionable conduct, raising questions about the scope of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
• Partisan division: The impeachment process deepened the already existing partisan divisions within the country.
• Impact on public trust: While Clinton remained in office, the impeachment undoubtedly eroded public trust in both the president and the political system.
• Shifting political landscape: Clinton's impeachment coincided with the rise of partisan media and increasingly polarized political discourse.

Comparing and Contrasting the Two Impeachments

While both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House of Representatives, the circumstances and consequences differed significantly. Johnson's impeachment was primarily driven by political disagreements over Reconstruction policy, while Clinton's stemmed from personal misconduct and alleged perjury. Both impeachments revealed the complexities of the impeachment process and the inherent tensions between different branches of government.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can a president be impeached for anything?

A: No. The Constitution specifies that impeachment is for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." While the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is open to interpretation, it generally refers to serious offenses that undermine the integrity of the office.

Q: Has any other president faced impeachment proceedings?

A: While several presidents have faced calls for impeachment, only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have been formally impeached by the House of Representatives.

Q: What happens if a president is convicted?

A: If the Senate convicts a president by a two-thirds vote, that president is removed from office. The Vice President then assumes the presidency.

Q: Can a president be impeached and then prosecuted after leaving office?

A: Yes. While impeachment is a political process, it does not preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.

Conclusion

The impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton offer invaluable lessons on the dynamics of American governance. They highlight the complexities of the impeachment process, the importance of maintaining checks and balances, and the ongoing debate over the appropriate grounds for removing a president from office. These historical events underscore the fragility of presidential power and the crucial role of Congress in holding the executive branch accountable. While the specific circumstances of each impeachment differ widely, both serve as powerful reminders of the need for careful consideration and rigorous adherence to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The lasting impact of these events continues to shape discussions about presidential accountability and the ongoing evolution of American democracy.