Stop Comparing Trump's Impeachment Case to Johnson's ... or Nixon's ... or Clinton's
The internet is awash in historical explainers and hot takes trying to make sense of our sudden constitutional crisis. Marshalled on behalf of a range of competing viewpoints, the arguments are sprinkled with references to Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clintonthe three presidents who faced impeachment proceedings before Donald Trump. Which one applies to the current president and his apparent effort to enlist Ukraine in going after Joe Biden, his potential opponent in the 2020 election?
Turning to the past is understandable: A presidential impeachment cries out for historical context. The past is supposed to offer a map of sorts through what feels like an unfamiliar and treacherous adventure. Butas historians, ironically, are sometimes the first ones to point outhistory isnt actually a very good guide here. Were in uncharted waters, and its best that we recognize that.
Why do the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton examples offer us so little direct help today? Every impeachment poses two discrete sets of questions for the House and Senate to consider. First, there are constitutional questions: Are impeachment and conviction justified? Second, there are political questions: Are impeachment and conviction possible? With every previous presidential impeachment, the answers have been different, and in the case of Trump and Ukraine, the answers are different still. Weve simply never had a case before where the removal of a president was so well justifiedwhile at the same time so obviously unlikely to happen.
The 1868 impeachment of Johnson grew out of a power struggle between a reactionary president and the Radical Republicans who held power in Congress. Having assumed the White House after Abraham Lincolns assassination, Johnsona Southerner who never left the unionwarred with Republicans over a series of bills dealing with civil rights for the newly freed slaves and the terms for readmitting secessionist states.
The conflict crested when the Republicans passed the Tenure of Office Act, a law of uncertain constitutionality that barred the president from firing a member of his Cabinet unless the Senate approved a successor. Annoyed by Congress efforts to tie his hands, Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, a Lincoln administration holdover, without securing Senate approvalcreating a test case of the new legislation. Johnsons defiance provoked the House to swiftly pass 11 articles of impeachment, most of which dealt with the Tenure of Office Act.
Johnson was duly impeached. But he ultimately dodged removal from office because moderate Republicans came to his aid in his Senate trial. With no vice president in place, his ouster would have awarded the presidency to Senate President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wadea fiery radical unloved by the moderates. Johnson sent word that he would relent in his fights with the Republicans if they let him stay in office, helping him to prevail by just one vote.
-more-
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/28/trump-impeachment-nixon-clinton-johnson-228754
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Otherwise it's not impeachment.