Limiting Consequences, Constitution Article 1 §3.7

Democracy is hard, but it helps if you know what you’re doing. I want to be better at democracy so I’m studying the Constitution, and blogging what I learn.

When I was in college, I had a biology professor who often referred to experiments as ‘elegant.’ The elegant experiments were simply designed, but revealed profound results. Democracy is often referred to as an experiment. The democratic experiment is messy – scientists would say there’s a lot of noise in the data. But the design in the Constitution is elegant, and worthy of study.

After all, we must all be Constitutional scholars to get valid results.

I’m currently reading the first of seven articles. Article One deals with the legislative branch of government and has 10 sections. Section One establishes a bicameral Congress and Section Two deals with the House of Representatives. I’m currently reading Section Three, which deals with the Senate. Last week I read Clause 6, which outlined the process of impeachment. Today is Clause 7, which continues on the same theme.

Article 1 §3.7

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Limits of Impeachment

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

Impeachment is only about removing someone from office. Throughout history, removal from high office has usually meant dragging an official outside to be shot or beheaded. Setting up a legal impeachment process that extends only to job loss is extremely civilized, if perhaps emotionally unsatisfying.

So much of American patriotism is of the rah-rah variety, it’s a little disconcerting to be reminded that the foundations of our democracy are designed to sever emotion from politics. The Framers were trying to build a rational system of government where the rule of law supersedes the whims and passions of powerful individuals.

Limiting the consequences of impeachment has a practical benefit as well. In an authoritarian government, the perks of high office (total impunity as long as power lasts) tend to compensate for the risks of rebellion. But who would run for office in a democracy where accusations of impropriety could result in a bullet to the head? When done properly, serving in public office is thankless enough with the threat of death.

Limits to the Limits

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If public officials must be protected from excessive reprisal, if there is to be rule of law, they must also be subject to the same consequences for their crimes as everyone else. If job loss is the only risk of criminal behavior, crime would pay, and the incentive would be to think big and act fast. Finishing terms would become quaint.

So impeachment slows down the removal process until cooler heads prevail, and then the regular legal process takes over and politicians’ crimes are tried as for any other citizen. Elegant.

History and Relevance Today

At least at the presidential level, this clause has never been relevant. There have only been two presidential impeachments, and both were acquitted.

Will it be relevant in the future? I talked last week about the growing likelihood of the current president being impeached. And I’m kind of sick of thinking about that guy, so I won’t say more right now. This week he’s targeting people who grew up in the U.S. for deportation. I’m sure by the time this post publishes, people will have forgotten about Dreamers in response to some new outrage. But there’s a chance that in a few months, I’ll be glad I read up on the rules for impeachment.