Impeaching Trump: What would the Founders say?

Posted by

In the course of any given day lately, I find myself grappling with the following question: What would the Founders do about it? Or, even better—what were they thinking and what were their arguments as they went about writing that sacred document we call the United States Constitution?

Actually, it’s a practice I’ve been doing for quite some time. I mean, between gun rights, abortion rights, immigration, and so many other issues, our Constitution is the basis for trying to figure out how to deal with these controversial issues. Often, we try to gauge what the intent of the Founders was. We can read their words in such publications like The Federalist Papers, and other discussions and arguments they were engaged in, that have been documented in letters, debates, and of course, The Constitutional Convention itself.

Currently, though, the impeachment process is front and center. Ever since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the drumbeat has only gotten louder. And when you add in The Mueller Report, which cleared the President and his campaign of conspiracy with the Russians—but not obstruction of justice—you have what is fast becoming a constitutional crisis in the making. And taking a look at how the Founders looked at impeachment, and how they ended up dealing with it in the Constitution, is worth a look.

Recently I came across an article from 2017, written by Erick Trickey in The Smithsonian. Entitled, Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense, it’s a detailed analysis that centers on three Virginia delegates and the arguments and debates between them. The following are some of the main points from the piece. You can read the full article here.

The Founders struggled with impeachment.

Just as it is today, impeachment was a thorny issue for the framers. They couldn’t agree on the wording, nor could they adequately figure out what an impeachable offense should be. Problems that could not be resolved were moved to the Committee on Postponed Matters, and impeachment was one of those issues.

The three Virginia delegates in question who were instrumental in resolving the issue were: James Madison, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph. All three took leading roles at the Convention from the beginning, as it convened on May 25, 1787. After over three months of deliberation, and the supreme document nearly completed, it was Mason who sounded the alarm over the new government about to be created. He was worried that a future president could become a tyrant as oppressive as King George lll.

At that point, the new document only specified that treason and bribery were the only grounds for impeaching the President. But Mason was worried that treason wouldn’t include “attempts to subvert the Constitution.” Mason proposed another category of impeachable offenses: “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The vagueness of this phrase has confounded those in the legal and political world forever. But if you take a more in-depth look, it becomes a bit clearer what Mason intended those words to mean.

Defending impeachment

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania had moved to strike impeachment from the document. Morris stated, If the President should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence. Impeachment will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.”

But Madison, Mason, and Randolph all spoke up to defend impeachment. “Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” Mason suggested that a presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

And Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation—embezzlement–or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

Randolph agreed. “The executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power—particularly in a time of war, when military force, and in some respects, the public money, will be in his hands.”

Impeachment modeled after British Parliament.

The model used by the three Virginia delegates resembled the same process that had been used by the British Parliament for over 400 years, which was aimed at exercising some control over the king’s ministers. While the three were in general agreement over impeachment, there were some differences. Mason had used the impeachment of the Governor-General of India, Warren Hastings, as an example of how an out of control President should be dealt with. Mason argued that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit the same misdeeds as Hastings.

Mason then proposed adding “maladministration” as a third cause for impeaching the President, to which Madison objected, saying “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” In other words, Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the President whenever it wanted.

So Mason offered the substitute: “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State.” Eventually, “against the state” was removed in the final document, and many have come to interpret “high crimes” as meaning only crimes identified in criminal law.

Would Trump’s impeachment qualify under the Founder’s criteria?

Again, the vagueness of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a sticking point for so many. But if you realize that the Founders were relying so much on how the Brits had dealt with impeachment in Parliament, you begin to understand where they were coming from.

We’ve had three impeachments in the United States. Historians are in basic agreement that the proceedings against Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson did not adhere to the integrity of what the Founders had envisioned regarding impeachment … but that the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon did.

And in fact, the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 offered up this explanation: “High crimes and misdemeanors originally referred to “damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament’s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust,” allegations that “were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.”


If House Democrats decide to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, based on the original intent of the Founders, they would be well within their rights to do so. Looking at how the House in 1974 decided to go about impeaching Nixon, invoking the original intent of Mason, Madison, Randolph, and others, how could anyone reach a different conclusion?

I would argue that anyone who has read The Mueller Report could not disagree unless partisanship and allegiance to Trump rule your world. There are 10 legal cases of obstruction of justice laid out in Part Two of The Report. Corruption, abuse of power, neglect of duty, and a betrayal of trust are all on full display.

The Founders were worried about a tyrant coming to power in their new government—nobody more so than George Mason. Were Mason alive today, he would be shocked beyond belief at what is transpiring in the White House daily. That is why impeachment seems not only inevitable—but warranted. I’m confident Mr. Mason would agree.


  1. I am in full agreement that impeachment is warranted and justified. My only concern is that the House does not currently have the 2/3 needed to vote for impeachment, and we all know that under Mitch McConnell, the Senate would not vote to convict and remove from office. My fear here was that if the House invoked the articles of impeachment, ran the investigations, put together the case, and then failed to garner the necessary votes, a failed impeachment would cause an escalation of the madness that is Trump. However, his insanity already seems to be escalating anyway, so my thoughts now are that the House should start the impeachment process with the intention of presenting evidence such that even the republican representatives would find their consciences and vote to impeach. The Senate still won’t convict, but at least an impeached president isn’t likely to be the nominee next year.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The process has begun I suppose. Dems are winning court cases. I still wonder though, what the Supreme Court will do with some of these court challenges. Will they do their job and follow precedent as it relates to congressional oversight? Or, will they pull a Bill Barr and support their dear leader. Ughhhh. I think we’re going to find out eventually. In the meantime, Dems just have to keep up the pressure. I agree with your assessment and fear about the 2/3 House vote though. We’re not there yet. Hey…I still have that awesome dream that he just says screw it…I’m out of here!!! Please….if there’s a god….lol

      Liked by 1 person

      1. True, and I’ve been pleased by the two judges who ruled in favour of Congress’ request for information, but as they say, “it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings”, and the ‘fat lady’ in this case is likely to be the Supreme Court. However, we can hope for the appellate court to uphold the lower court rulings. Fingers are crossed. I think that, while I have no trust of Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh, I do trust the others on the court to be fair. Chief Justice Roberts has remonstrated Trump a few times and I believe him to be a fair man. Time will tell. And yeah … I share your dream … I have it lots of nights … and days.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
    Impeachment, or as Trump calls it, “the I-word”, is on the minds of many of us these days. It is debatable whether impeachment would be successful at this juncture, hence the caution being exercised by Speaker Pelosi. Our friend Jeff over at On the Fence Voters has done his homework and pondered the situation from the perspective of how the framers of the U.S. Constitution might have viewed it, and I think the results of his pondering are worth sharing. Thank you, Jeff, for this thoughtful work and for allowing me to share …

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Jill. Much appreciated…as always. I don’t know about you, but I keep feeling the earth move these days….It’s the Founders rolling over in their graves!!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My pleasure, as always! Yep, I have that same feeling … and sometimes in my sleep I hear a scream that I’m sure is Benjamin Franklin screaming “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Great summary. I have written to several GOP Senators noting my agreement with the courageous GOP Congressman Justin Amash’s comments that the President is guilty of obstruction. He continues to obstruct to this day.

    And, as more of the financial data unfolds, it will reveal a much deeper relationship with money laundering ties in Russia through Deutsche Bank and other means. There is a reason he does not want people to look.

    I feel this regal-minded, tempestuous and untruthful man is a clear and present danger to our democracy, our planet and even the Republican Party. I believe the GOP must lead the impeachment of this man.

    As an independent and former Republican, the question I have asked these Senators time and again, is this the man you want to spend your dear reputation on? Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks Keith. I just don’t know what it’s going to take for these Republicans do finally wake up. Rep. Justin Amash has at least stuck his neck out. But he’s the only one to do so. And I don’t anticipate any of them following suit. Good on you for at least writing them to voice your displeasure. Sadly, it’s only when big money donors speak up, that they ever even think of changing direction. And, we aren’t seeing that happen. Sad times my friend….

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As I just wrote to Jill, we should be passed the point where the, excuse the expression, shit hits the fan. Yet, there are pending lawsuits from Mueller, there are pending lawsuits from the House, the economy will stall some, and there is Trump himself who will be loose with facts and the truth as his modus operandi.

        I did take hope from a story from a friend that a Trump supporter was ruing her vote saying now “Trump is an evil man.”

        If I were the GOP, I would have a Romney, Hogan or Kasich in the bullpen. They will need to act to save our country, and I do not say this lightly or without thought. It seems almost every issue is one of contention and the lone constant in a sea of varying parties is the US President. As an Independent and former Republican, when I see his picture behind the newscaster or beside an article, my first reaction is “what has he done now?” I have never felt this way about any President since Nixon and that was only after we were aware of Watergate.


        Liked by 2 people

      2. I agree with you about Kasich, Romney, or Hogan. One of these guys should step up to the plate. If Trump had to worry about a primary from a credible Republican, it would damage the hell out of him … even though he would probably prevail. But, who knows? One other thing that gives me a little hope. I saw a poll the other day where over 50% said they would absolutely not vote for Trump in 2020. If true, that would not bode well for him at all. I’ve got a little hope Keith!! I’ll take it


  4. Funny enough, I ran into this old post of yours today Basically, I am reading this now that we are into an impeachment inquiry.

    One thing the founders were not ambiguous about was that a bribe was an impeachable offense. With the growing evidence that aid to Ukraine was tied to digging up dirt on the Bidens, there is also growing evidence that Trump committed an act of bribery. “I will only give you money if you dig dirt on a chief political rival”–sounds like a bribe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s