Cooper, Charles J., Esq., Senior Partner, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, Wash- 180 Drinan, Robert F., S.J., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, and 112 Holden, Matthew, Jr., Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, Uni- 57 McDonald, Forrest, Historian and Distinguished University Research Profes- 211 McDowell, Gary L., Director, Institute for United States Studies, University 28 Pollitt, Daniel H., Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus, University 203 Tribe, Laurence H., Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Univer- Sunstein, Carl R., Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Juris- 81 218 Turley, Jonathan, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washing- 250 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Alstyne, William Van, Duke University School of Law: Prepared statement Barr, Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Additional Bloch, Susan Low, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Canady, Hon. Charles T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution: Prepared state- Cannon, Christopher B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cooper, Charles J., Esq., Senior Partner, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, Wash- ington, DC.: Prepared statement Drinan, Robert F., S.J., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, and Gallegly, Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of California: Gerhardt, Michael J., Professor of Law, College of William & Mary School Page 234 114 Harrison, John C., Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School 78 Holden, Matthew, Jr., Department of Government and Foreign Affairs, Uni- versity of Virginia: Prepared statement McDonald, Forrest, Historian and Distinguished University Research Profes- McDowell, Gary L., Director, Institute for United States Studies, University McGinnis, John O., Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Parker, Richard D., Williams Professor of Law, Harvard University Law Pollitt, Daniel H., Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus, University 214 31 106 Scott, Robert C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia: 315 Sunstein, Carl R., Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Juris- 83 221 Turley, Jonathan, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washing- 254 Letter dated November 9, 1998, from Thomas E. Mooney and David 157 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1998 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles T. Canady (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, Henry J. Hyde, Bob Inglis, Ed Bryant, Bill Jenkins, Bob Goodlatte, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Robert C. Scott, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Melvin L. Watt. Also present: Representatives Bill McCollum, Stephen E. Buyer, James E. Rogan, George W. Gekas, Howard Coble, Lamar S. Smith, Elton Gallegly, Steve Chabot, Edward A. Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, Mary Bono, Lindsey O. Graham, Barney Frank, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert Wexler, and Steven R. Rothman. Staff present: John H. Ladd, chief counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution; Cathleen Cleaver, counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution; Sharee Freeman, counsel, Committee on the Judiciary; Tom Mooney, general counsel, Committee on the Judiciary; Daniel Freeman, counsel and parliamentarian, Committee on the Judiciary; Susana Gutierrez, clerk, Subcommittee on the Constitution; Brian Woolfolk, minority counsel, Committee on the Judiciary; Perry Apelbaum, minority general counsel, Committee on the Judiciary; Julian Epstein, minority chief counsel and staff director, Committee on the Judiciary; Stephanie Peters, minority counsel, Committee on the Judiciary; and Samara Ryder, minority counsel, Committee on the Judiciary. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CANADY Mr. CANADY. The Subcommittee on the Constitution will come to order. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony from legal and constitutional scholars on the background and history of impeachment. It is the intention of the Chair to recognize himself and the Ranking Minority Members for 10 minutes for opening statements, and then to recognize each member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution for 5 minutes for each opening statement. The Chair will now recognize himself for an opening statement for 10 minutes. (1) Today this subcommittee meets to receive testimony on the important subject of the "Background and History of Impeachment." We will hear from two panels of distinguished witnesses on this grave subject. I am hopeful that the testimony we hear today, diverse as it most certainly will be, will provide the members of the Judiciary Committee with information that will help us reach an informed and considered judgment on the ultimate issues that are raised in the impeachment inquiry which was authorized by the House on October 8th. At the outset, it should be understood by everyone that the purpose of today's hearing is not to establish a fixed definition of impeachable offenses under the Constitution. The House has never, in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding, adopted either a comprehensive definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" or a catalog of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of Federal officials on a case-by-case basis. The House has determined whether impeachable offenses were committed by officials accused of wrongdoing on the basis of a full understanding of the facts of each individual case. That is a model that has been consistently followed throughout the more than 200-year history of impeachment in the United States, and that is a model which the Judiciary Committee is now following in the inquiry with respect to President Clinton. Although we will search in vain for any simple or clear-cut definitions, there are certain general principles which do emerge from the background and history of impeachment. The Constitution grants the House the "sole power of impeachment." But that does not mean that the House exercises unfettered discretion. Contrary to the assertion of Gerald Ford that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history," the power of the House to impeach is not an arbitrary power. Impeachment must not be a raw exercise of political power in which the House impeaches whoever it wishes, for any reason it deems sufficient. Indeed, it is the solemn duty of all of the Members of the House in any impeachment case to exercise their judgment faithfully within the confines established by our Constitution. When an impeachment is at issue, all partisan considerations must be put aside, and Members must be guided first and last by their oath to support the Constitution. As we will hear in today's testimony, various issues are hotly contested. The committee will have an opportunity to hear from some of the country's most articulate advocates of competing perspectives on the crucial issue of the scope of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." All of the members of the committee have, I know, already given considerable thought to this question. All of us are mindful of the work done by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the impeachment inquiry with respect to President Nixon, and we look to that work for guidance in our present task. There has been much discussion recently concerning the report on "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment" prepared by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, bits and pieces of that report have been pulled out of con |