Technically, impeachment is the quasi-criminal proceeding initiated by the Senate to impeach a public official, not the act of impeachment itself. However, most references to impeachment encompass the entire process, beginning with the House impeachment inquiry. The term is used here in this broader sense. Impeachment is a complex set of steps and procedures conducted by the legislature. The trial looks a bit like a grand jury inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives, followed by a full-fledged trial conducted by the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. Impeachment is not exclusively aimed at presidents. The constitutional wording “all public servants” includes positions such as federal judges. However, legislators are offering a slightly streamlined process for lower offices by delegating much of it to committees. See Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (concerning the removal of a federal judge). The impeachment of the president involves the full public participation of both branches of Congress. Removal is an instrument that was included from the outset in the plans proposed to the Convention; The discussion focused on issues such as which body should initiate impeachment proceedings and the grounds that should be invoked to justify impeachment.841 Much of the Framers` attention has focused on the president and his impeachment, and the results of this narrow frame of reference are reflected in issues that have not been resolved by the wording of the Constitution.

If examples of treason and corruption are considered characteristic of all impeachment offenses, then government officials could only be removed if they commit criminal acts affecting their public function. This is an important category of wrongdoing, but it seems unlikely to encompass the full range of behaviours that could put the public good at imminent risk. Only “private” crimes such as tax evasion, perjury, sexual assault, and obstruction of justice have been deemed worthy of an impeachment inquiry precisely because they call into question a judge`s or leader`s ability to continue to properly perform his or her duties and preserve the dignity and respect of the office he or she holds. Even some cases of non-criminal misconduct on the part of a senior public servant may be considered too intolerable to allow him or her to continue to perform his or her public duties. This meager history has given Congress relatively few opportunities to flesh out the backbone of the constitutional text. The impeachment clause was included in the Constitution to provide additional oversight against abuses by government officials and to allow Congress to impeach an inept officer who might otherwise harm the public good. Not surprisingly, most scandal-damaged “U.S. civilian” officers resigned rather than face impeachment.

The House of Representatives and Senate refused to respond to impeachment allegations against people who did not hold federal office at the time. The Senate decided early on that members of Congress should be expelled from their individual chambers rather than impeached. Presidents acted quickly to remove problematic members of the executive branch. In practice, judges and presidents have been the main targets of impeachment investigations. The British impeachment proceedings against Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, which were on the horizon at the time of the formulation and ratification of the constitution, were of particular importance to the understanding of practice in America. Hoffer & Hull, op. cit. cit., note 3, pp. 113-15. Hastings has been charged with serious crimes and misdemeanors, including bribery and abuse of power.23FootnoteConstitutional Grounds, op. cit.

footnote 2, p. 7; Hoffer & Hull, op. cit. cit., note 3, pp. 113-15. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason alluded positively to Hastings` impeachment. At that time, the Convention had considered a proposal to define impeachment as appropriate for treason and corruption. George Mason objected, stating that treason would not cover Hastings` misconduct.24Footnote2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, note 17, p. 550. In addition, he believed that impeachment should extend to attempts to undermine the Constitution.25FootnoteId.

Accordingly, he proposed that maladministration be included in the category of criminal offences, although, as noted above, this offence was eventually rejected in favour of serious crimes.26FootnoteSee Article II.S4.4.2 Historical background and accompanying notes. Although the authors saw very clearly the occasional need for impeachment proceedings, they created only a very general framework for future action. Perhaps more importantly, they did not clearly define what they meant by “serious crimes.” Nevertheless, the authors turned a tool used by the English Parliament to restrain kings and punish reserved spaces into a powerful legislative check on executive and judicial misconduct. In the U.S. version of impeachment, the power of the House of Commons to indict anyone for almost any alleged crime was curtailed, and the threat of death upon conviction was lifted. In the United States, impeachment reflected English tradition and precedent, while containing compromises that the framers of the Constitution insisted upon. In the summer of 1974, after the Watergate scandal, the Senate was preparing for the possibility of a second impeachment as the House of Representatives moved closer and closer to impeaching President Richard Nixon. In July, the Senate passed a resolution asking the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to review existing impeachment rules and precedents and recommend amendments.