This paper examines the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton based on the ethical dilemmas presented in each case. This article basically focuses on discussing the similarities and differences in these impeachment trials based on the president's actions, Senate proceedings, and political motivation of the proceedings. The final part of the article identifies the ethical dilemmas in each case and the level of severity of the ethical violations.
Separation of Powers:
The United States Constitution protects the right to impeach public officials and provides the procedures and grounds for such measures. According to this constitution, civil servants in America shall be impeached for conviction of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and treason. President Adam Johnson is one of the U.S. presidents who have been impeached while President Richard Nixon resigned before impeachment. President Bill Clinton faced impeachment during his tenure, which contributed to concerns that such an action could contribute to weakened presidency. The impeachment trials of these three presidents present some ethical dilemmas that were evident in the Senate's trial proceedings and political aspects. Moreover, these impeachment trials have certain similarities and differences that were fueled by the actions of the presidents in question.
Impeachment Trial of the Three Presidents:
President Adam Johnson was removed from office in May 1868 when the Senate voted unanimously to remove him from office. The main reason for his impeachment trial was alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act, though there were other reasons attributed to it. The trial can be regarded as a political trial because it also included trial on his lenient Reconstruction policies and his rejections of the Freedman's Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act (Linder, n.d.). Upon his assumption to office, some Republicans in Congress opposed President Johnson's too-lenient policies toward reconstruction, which was contrary to their theory of reconstruction.
Impeachment calls against President Johnson started to gain ground after the massacre in New Orleans that fueled the animosity between the president and the Republican Congress. These Republicans complained about Johnson's generous use of the pardon power, public drunkenness, and rumors that he was a major factor in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Johnson's opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment and campaign for its defeat intensified impeachment efforts, which gained more ground following his violation of Tenure of Office Act in 1867.
President Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 at a time when his impeachment seemed inevitable. The impeachment efforts for President Nixon started after five people recruited by his re-election committee were found burglarizing the headquarters of Democratic Party. Nixon's impeachment trials were fueled by his subsequent behavior to cover-up the burglary and decline to turn over evidence. These were coupled by allegations of illegitimate wiretapping, obstruction of justice, perjury, abuses of executive power, bribery, and misuse of the CIA (Brunner, 2007). The inevitable impeachment was based on Nixon's action in ways that were divergent to his trust as president and subversive constitutional government.
President Bill Clinton is remembered as the most investigated president in America's history because of the nature of the impeachment trial he faced. Clinton was investigated because of his personal flaws and bitter partisanship relationship that characterized his two presidential terms. His impeachment trial was based on allegations of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and illicit extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. However, while the House of Representatives only approved two articles related to the illicit extra-marital affair, eleven impeachable offenses had been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee ("The Clinton Impeachment," n.d.).
Ethical Dilemmas in Each Case:
These impeachment trials consist of varying impeachment dilemmas that were brought against each President. The ethical dilemma in Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial was whether he deserved to be removed from office because of being a blowhard or violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Actually, while the impeachment had its own value, it channeled the widespread anger against President Johnson into a morality issue. Based on the reasons presented to the Senate, Johnson should have not been removed from office because of his violation of the act and being a blowhard. The Senate's actions were largely unethical and politically motivated since they were based on political partisanship that characterized Johnson's presidency. The Senate also demonstrated political motivation and unethical actions by including Johnson's public drunkenness and accusations of involvement in Lincoln's assassination in the impeachment trials. The ethical dilemma in the case is whether the president's ability to govern should be based on his policies and political partisanship.
As a member of the Senate, the ethical charges I would bring against President Nixon include his confrontational and insensitivity in dealing with the nation's issues at a time when America was in desperate need for someone to heal her wounds. Secondly, I would accuse Johnson of seriously undermining attempts to improve the state of America's newly freed slaves. These charges are actionable because they would constitute to violation of human rights and inability to govern effectively. These charges would not require any criminal proceedings but would necessitate impeachment of the president.
Unlike Johnson, Nixon's impeachment proceedings were characterized by appropriate actions by the Senate. As a member of the Senate, the ethical charges I would bring against President Nixon are similar to those brought against him by the Senate. These charges are actionable since they constituted grounds for impeachment as stated in the constitution. The Senate's actions were not politically motivated but ethical because President Nixon acted in a manner that brought great prejudice to the cause of law and justice and harm to the people of the United States. The ethical dilemma in the case is what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors that would result in a president's removal from office as stated in the U.S. Constitution. President Nixon's impeachment was justified by his actions that qualified as high crimes and misdemeanors such as bribery, abuse of power, obstructing justice, perjury, and illegal wiretapping among others.
Similar to Johnson's trial, Clinton's impeachment trial was based on inappropriate actions by the Senate since the allegations were politically motivated. While Johnson's and Nixon's trials had substantial constitutional and institutional ramifications, Clinton's trial had more personal and paltry ramifications (Whittington, 2000, p.425). The ethical dilemma from Clinton's impeachment trial is whether lying about an illicit extra-marital affair is a high crime or misdemeanor. The other dilemma is whether personal issues affect the ability of a president to govern and to what extent such issues affect presidential governance. Senate's actions were unethical and politically motivated since the charges against President Clinton were expressions of bitter partisanship during his tenure. Actually, the House voting regarding Clinton's impeachment was deeply divided unlike any other since Reconstruction. Clinton should have not faced an impeachment trial but a criminal proceeding because his actions had significant personal ramifications than constitutional implications. The president should have faced a criminal proceeding based on his personal issues rather than an impeachment trial. In essence, Clinton's impeachment was based on political rather than constitutional reasons.
You’re 84% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.