President/Executive Department Commons^™

Falling Out Of Love With America: The Clinton Impeachment And The Madisonian Constitution, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

First, were the Nixon and Clinton affairs truly as different as my memory makes them? Were the villains of Watergate as villainous and the heroes as heroic as I remember them? Were nearly all the players on both sides of l'affaire Lewinsky as shallow and fatuous as they seemed? Or to put the question in broader historical context, was the impeachment of Bill Clinton truly distinct, not only from Watergate, but from all of the other (fortunately few) occasions on which a president was seriously threatened with removal from office? Second, if the Clinton impeachment really was as bizarre, unprecedented, …

Impeachment Defanged And Other Institutional Ramifications Of The Clinton Scandals, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Restoring The Balance Of Power: Impeachment And The Twenty-Second Amendment, James Randolph Peck

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The recent proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton brought Congress' impeachment power into the national spotlight. In the public debate on when it is appropriate for Congress to exercise this power, it is important to consider that the Framers gave this power to the legislature principally as a tool to maintain a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Examining the debates at the Constitutional Convention, this Note details how the Framers deliberately sought to balance the President's term in office and eligibility for re-election with the Congress' impeachment power in order to prevent …

The Trial Of President William Jefferson Clinton: "Impartial Justice," The Court Of Impeachment And Ranked Vignettes Of Praiseworthy Senatorial Rhetoric, Robert F. Blomquist

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Special Constitutional Structure Of The Federal Impeachment Process, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Perils Of Presidential Impeachment, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

High Crimes And Misdemeanors: Defining The Constitutional Limits On Presidential Impeachment, Frank O. Bowman Iii, Stephen L. Sepinuck

Faculty Publications

This Article had its genesis in a statement by the authors submitted to the House Judiciary Committee during its proceedings regarding the impeachment of President Clinton. This final much expanded version appears after the conclusion of the Clinton impeachment proceedings in the Senate, and it is certainly informed by the course those proceedings took. Strictly speaking, however, this is not an article “about” the Clinton impeachment. Although this Article draws some conclusions from the treatment by the House and Senate of the fundamental allegations against President Clinton, it does not address in detail the specific facts underlying those allegations. The …

Terms Of Endearment And Articles Of Impeachment, Christopher Slobogin, Charles W. Collier

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

It is a long-established principle that presidential impeachment is an appropriate remedy only for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" of a public nature (with the possible exception of private crimes so heinous that the President "cannot be permitted to remain at large"). The crux of this Essay's argument is that the President's affair with Monica Lewinsky was a private matter that was not rendered "public" simply because Mr. Clinton lied about it. With its vote against removing the President, the Senate seemed to agree.

Lies And Law, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Historical And Constitutional Significance Of The Impeachment And Trial Of President Clinton, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Lessons Of Impeachment History, Michael J. Gerhardt

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Original Model Of The Independent Counsel Statute, Ken Gormley

Michigan Law Review

On Friday, October 19, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon took a risky step to de-fang the Watergate investigation that had become a "viper in the bosom" of his Presidency. The U.S. Court of Appeals had just directed him to tum over tape-recordings subpoenaed by Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox; these taperecordings might prove or disprove White House involvement in the Watergate cover-up. Rather than challenge this ruling, the President conceived a new plan. The White House would prepare summaries of the nine tape-recordings in question, which would be verified by Senator John Stennis, a seventy-two-year-old Democrat from Mississippi, working alone …

The Specially Investigated President, Charles Tiefer

All Faculty Scholarship

This article argues that the new legal status - the "specially investigated President" - conferred upon recent presidents reflects an unprecedented change in the criminal investigation process of the President. Although recent presidents have experienced formal criminal investigations, each have used creative and legitimate ways to escape indictment, trial, or impeachment. By investigating President Bush and President Clinton's ability to successfully avoid prosecution, this article presents an analytical framework to explain the issues surrounding the "specially investigated President," and offers suggestions on how to reform the process.

In his analysis, the author illustrates the tension between opposing viewpoints regarding the …

Impeachment In Florida, Frederick B. Karl, Marguerite Davis

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presidential Pensions And Impeachment: A Proposal For Reform, Patrick E. Mears

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Former Presidents Act grants annual monetary and clerical allowances and free office space to "former Presidents." Under the Act a President is ineligible to receive any retirement benefits if he or she is removed from office by impeachment and conviction in the Congress of the United States. However, a President facing imminent impeachment can retain the benefits by resigning before the impeachment process culminates in his removal from office. Constitutional considerations indicate that the benefits conferred by the Act could not be revoked or reduced by special congressional legislation upon resignation; such action could be challenged as a bill …