Democracy is a wonderful thing. Our chosen political system allows us, the people, to elect politicians that serve our interests. At its finest, democracy channels the will of the voters into policy, directly creating landmark pieces of legislation like the G.I. Bill, the Civil Rights Act and the 19th Amendment — acts widely regarded as some of the most beneficial legal feats in American history. Note, however, that the most recent came in 1964. During the Johnson administration, public trust in Congress began a rapid descent, now sitting at just one-fourth its 1964 level.
In recent years, pieces of legendary legislation are few and far between, with each president generally signing one substantial bill per term. Impeachment, which has grown increasingly popular as a method of attacking one’s political opponents, is one likely culprit. Impeachment proceedings have inhibited Congress and the president from carrying out their duties, serving as a double-edged sword against the democratic process.
Three impeachment efforts are currently underway in Congress. House Republicans recently voted to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of Homeland security, in the Senate. In January, Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., introduced articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for, among other things, failing to appropriately disclose his hospitalization for cancer treatment. Of course, the impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden is still progressing, although Republicans have yet to present concrete evidence that Biden directly profited from his son’s business dealings.
Per Article II of the U.S. Constitution, “all Civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office” on the basis of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” like treason or bribery, requiring two-thirds vote in the Senate. Such a substantial requirement is meant to prevent individual parties from capriciously removing their opponents. However, none of the three impeachment processes meet the standard articulated in the Constitution. It could be true that Mayorkas is inept at preventing illegal immigration, and Austin may have been grossly negligent in failing to notify the president of his absence, but neither amounts to high misconduct under the Constitution.
These impeachment efforts are troubling on two fronts. Evidently, they inhibit the ability of the official under investigation to carry out their duties. Biden is now forced to dedicate his public statements and media energy to defending himself and his son’s conduct, rather than focusing on the issues Americans really care about. A poll from the Pew Research Center revealed that only 16% of Americans are following the impeachment probe closely, and that only 28% believe there are “definitely grounds” to impeach Biden. A Reuters Ipsos survey showed that 21% of Americans, and only 43% of Republicans, strongly believe Biden should be impeached. It is time for the senseless inquiry to stop, acknowledging its lack of support and interest from the American public. The probe into Biden, as well as the unwarranted attacks on Mayorkas and Austin, reduce the legitimacy of Congress when the branch should be supporting productive legislation.
Furthermore, impeachment proceedings also prevent those supporting the investigations from enacting positive legislation. Ideally, members of both established political parties would collaborate and compromise on policies amenable to Americans across the political aisle. Recently, 24 House Republicans broke with their caucus to pass the CHIPS Act. Such bipartisanship is damned by Republican leaders and their impeachment inquiry against Biden and his cabinet.
In fact, the current Congress is on track to be the least productive in decades. As the conservative editorial board for the Wall Street Journal notes, it would be far more productive for Republicans to strike a deal with Biden on “serious border-security reforms” pertaining to parole and the asylum standard than it would be to seek the removal of Mayorkas from his cabinet post.
The Democratic party is not entirely blameless in the impeachment frenzy. Former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment occurred in 2019 in response to allegations that the former president used frozen military aid to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into investigating Biden, Trump’s chief opponent in the 2020 presidential election. Although blackmailing a foreign leader is certainly inappropriate, especially when it is intended to disrupt a political opponent’s campaign, the articles against Trump did not charge the president with violating any criminal statute. It is rather challenging to argue that Trump committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” when he isn’t even accused of committing a crime.
On the other hand, Trump’s second impeachment was a valid exercise of the impeachment power. The former president’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection certainly constitutes a high crime as articulated in the Constitution. Trump shook the very foundations of democracy when he actively subverted the legitimacy of a presidential election to retain power.
In the past, impeachment was used for its proper use: as a vehicle for removing officials who engaged in high crimes. Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, and for his opposition to granting political rights to freed slaves. Richard Nixon resigned from office before he could be convicted for his role in orchestrating the Watergate scandal. Both Johnson and Nixon committed illegal, unconstitutional and antidemocratic actions, and articles of impeachment were properly filed against them.
Although Republicans accused Bill Clinton of committing perjury, in violation of a federal statute, his impeachment marked a dramatic departure from the charges against Johnson and Nixon. While perjury is certainly a serious offense, making a false statement in a deposition hardly reaches the level of treason or bribery — the examples of high crimes listed in the Constitution. Ultimately, Clinton was investigated and impeached for a relatively minor offense, setting a precedent for the frivolous and partisan impeachment proceedings that occur today.
Proponents of the current impeachment inquiries might claim that incompetence should be sufficient for removal from office in order to improve the operation of our government. Job performance, though, is highly subjective. Permitting incompetence as a justification for impeachment encourages each political party to remove the officials it believes to be performing poorly. Elected officials judging the competence of their peers also supplants the will of the voters: If the people select a certain candidate to represent them, how can other politicians override that decision without the gravest violation of law?
We elect politicians to office so they can pursue policies that improve our lives. Impeachment proceedings prevent them from doing so and distract the public from the issues that shape our lives. The original framers of the Constitution knew this and crafted an impeachment clause meant to be used only in the most severe of circumstances. Subverting that standard prevents our government from running smoothly.
Lucas Feller is an Opinion Columnist from Glencoe, Ill. He writes about politics, economics, and constitutional law. He can be reached at lucasfel@umich.edu.