The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment

B. Kalt
{"title":"The Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials: An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment","authors":"B. Kalt","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.286277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the constitutional case for the impeachability of federal officers after they have left office. As a practical matter, while it may rarely be worthwhile to pursue a late impeachment (as with regular impeachment), this does not change the fact that it can be done, or that certain facts may make it desirable. The article principally argues that: (1) Late impeachment was practiced in England and, unlike other aspects of English impeachment, was never explicitly ruled out in America. Indeed, some state constitutions made late impeachability explicit, or even required. (2) Structurally, impeachment is designed not just to remove but to deter, and this effect would be severely undermined if it faded away near the end of a term. Convicted impeachees can be disqualified from future federal office, an important punishment that should not be automatically mooted if the officer resigns or the president removes him. (3) The precedents are mixed, but the Senate has approved late impeachment. Senate opponents of late impeachment have not prevented late trials, and they cannot alter the formal declaration of a majority of the Senate in one case that officers can indeed be impeached after they have left office.","PeriodicalId":387942,"journal":{"name":"Texas Review of Law and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Review of Law and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.286277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article considers the constitutional case for the impeachability of federal officers after they have left office. As a practical matter, while it may rarely be worthwhile to pursue a late impeachment (as with regular impeachment), this does not change the fact that it can be done, or that certain facts may make it desirable. The article principally argues that: (1) Late impeachment was practiced in England and, unlike other aspects of English impeachment, was never explicitly ruled out in America. Indeed, some state constitutions made late impeachability explicit, or even required. (2) Structurally, impeachment is designed not just to remove but to deter, and this effect would be severely undermined if it faded away near the end of a term. Convicted impeachees can be disqualified from future federal office, an important punishment that should not be automatically mooted if the officer resigns or the president removes him. (3) The precedents are mixed, but the Senate has approved late impeachment. Senate opponents of late impeachment have not prevented late trials, and they cannot alter the formal declaration of a majority of the Senate in one case that officers can indeed be impeached after they have left office.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前联邦官员可弹劾的宪法案例:对后期弹劾的法律、历史和实践的分析
本文考虑的是联邦官员离职后可被弹劾的宪法案例。作为一个实际问题,虽然进行晚弹劾(就像常规弹劾一样)可能很少值得,但这并不能改变这样一个事实,即可以这样做,或者某些事实可能使其成为可取的。这篇文章主要认为:(1)晚期弹劾在英国实行,与英国弹劾的其他方面不同,在美国从未明确排除过弹劾的可能性。事实上,一些州的宪法明确规定了晚期弹劾,甚至是必须的。从结构上讲,弹劾的目的不仅是罢免,而且是威慑,如果它在任期即将结束时消失,这种效果将受到严重损害。被定罪的弹劾者可能会被取消今后担任联邦公职的资格,这是一项重要的惩罚,不应该在该官员辞职或总统罢免他的情况下自动取消。先例不一,但参议院已经批准了迟来的弹劾。参议院反对推迟弹劾的人并没有阻止推迟审判,他们也无法改变参议院多数人的正式声明,即官员在离职后确实可以被弹劾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Odious Intellectual Company of Authority Restricting Second Amendment Rights to the 'Virtuous' The Constitutionality of DAPA Part II: Faithfully Executing the Law Justice Holmes and Conservatism The Invisible Constitution Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1