At the federal level, the impeachment process is typically a three-step procedure. The first phase is typically an
impeachment inquiry, though this is not a required stage. The two stages constitutionally required for removal are impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the United States Senate. • First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry. • Second, the
House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". • Third, the
Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the
chief justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the
president of the Senate, who is also the
vice president of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires the concurrence of a two-thirds
supermajority of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office and (optionally, in a separate vote) disqualification from holding any federal office in the future, which requires a concurrence of only a
majority of senators present.
Rules A number of rules have been adopted by the House and Senate and are honored by tradition.
Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives, states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges proffered by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.
The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House is a reference source for information on the rules and selected precedents governing the House procedure, prepared by the House Parliamentarian. The manual has a chapter on the House's rules, procedures, and precedent for impeachment. In 1974, as part of the preliminary investigation in the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry of the House Judiciary Committee prepared a report,
Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.
Calls for impeachment, and Congressional power to investigate While the actual impeachment of a federal public official is rare, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are common, going back to the administration of
George Washington in the mid-1790s. While almost all of them were abandoned as soon as they were introduced, several did have their intended effect. Treasury Secretary
Andrew Mellon and Supreme Court Justice
Abe Fortas both resigned in response to the threat of impeachment hearings, and most famously, President
Richard Nixon resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee had already reported articles of impeachment to the floor. In advance of the formal resolution by the full House to authorize proceedings, committee chairmen have the same power for impeachment as for any other issue within the jurisdiction of the committee: to investigate, subpoena witnesses, and prepare a preliminary report of findings. For example: • In 1970, House minority leader
Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice
William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor. The House did not vote to initiate proceedings. • In 1973, the
Senate Watergate hearings (with testimony from
John Dean, and the revelation of the
White House tapes by
Alexander Butterfield) were held in May and June 1973, and the House Judiciary Committee authorized
Chairman Rodino to commence an investigation, with subpoena power, on October 30, 1973. The full House voted to initiate impeachment proceedings on February 6, 1974, that is, after nine months of formal investigations by various Congressional committees. • Other examples are discussed in the article on
Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials. Targets of congressional investigations have challenged the power of Congress to investigate before a formal resolution commences impeachment proceedings. For example,
President Buchanan wrote to the committee investigating his administration: He maintained that the House of Representatives possessed no general powers to investigate him, except when sitting as an impeaching body. When the Supreme Court has considered similar issues, it held that the power to secure "needed information... has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate.... [The power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation's history:] It was so regarded in the British Parliament and in the colonial Legislatures before the American Revolution, and a like view has prevailed and been carried into effect in both houses of Congress and in most of the state Legislatures." The Supreme Court also held, "There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to contemplated legislation." The Supreme Court considered the power of the Congress to investigate, and to subpoena executive branch officials, in a pair of cases arising out of alleged corruption in the administration of President
Warren G. Harding. In the first,
McGrain v. Daugherty, the Court considered a subpoena issued to the brother of Attorney General Harry Daugherty for bank records relevant to the Senate's investigation into the Department of Justice. Concluding that the subpoena was valid, the Court explained that Congress's "power of inquiry... is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function", as "[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change." The Supreme Court held that it was irrelevant that the Senate's authorizing resolution lacked an "avow[al] that legislative action was had in view" because, said the Court, "the subject to be investigated was... [p]lainly [a] subject... on which legislation could be had" and such legislation "would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit." Although "[a]n express avowal" of the Senate's legislative objective "would have been better", the Court admonished that "the presumption should be indulged that [legislation] was the real object." the Court considered investigation of private parties involved with officials under potential investigation for public corruption. In
Sinclair,
Harry F. Sinclair, the president of an oil company, appealed his conviction for refusing to answer a Senate committee's questions regarding his company's
allegedly fraudulent lease on federal oil reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming. The Court, acknowledging individuals' "right to be exempt from all unauthorized, arbitrary or unreasonable inquiries and disclosures in respect of their personal and private affairs", nonetheless explained that because "[i]t was a matter of concern to the United States, ... the transaction purporting to lease to [Sinclair's company] the lands within the reserve cannot be said to be merely or principally... personal." The Court also dismissed the suggestion that the Senate was impermissibly conducting a criminal investigation. "It may be conceded that Congress is without authority to compel disclosures for the purpose of aiding the prosecution of pending suits, but the authority of that body, directly or through its committees, to require pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the information sought to be elicited may also be of use in such suits." The Supreme Court reached similar conclusions in a number of other cases. In
Barenblatt v. United States, the Court permitted Congress to punish contempt, when a person refused to answer questions while testifying under subpoena by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Court explained that although "Congress may not constitutionally require an individual to disclose his ... private affairs except in relation to ... a valid legislative purpose", such a purpose was present. Congress's "wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity... and to conduct appropriate investigations in aid thereof[] is hardly debatable", said the Court, and "[s]o long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power." Presidents have often been the subjects of Congress's legislative investigations. For example, in 1832, the House vested a select committee with subpoena power "to inquire whether an attempt was made by the late Secretary of War... [to] fraudulently [award]... a contract for supplying rations" to Native Americans and to "further... inquire whether the President... had any knowledge of such attempted fraud, and whether he disapproved or approved of the same." In the 1990s, first the House and Senate Banking Committees and then a Senate special committee investigated President and Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the
Whitewater land deal and related matters. The Senate had an enabling resolution; the House did not. The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to investigate so it can inform the public of the operations of government:
Impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives , May 9, 1974 Impeachment proceedings may be requested by a member of the House of Representatives, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate
committee. The impeachment process may be requested by non-members. For example, when the
Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a
special prosecutor, the president, or
state or territorial legislature,
grand jury, or by
petition. An impeachment proceeding formally begins with a resolution adopted by the full House of Representative. The proceedings take the form of a trial, with the Senate having the right to call witnesses and each side having the right to perform
cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with their own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an
oath or
affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with
due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a
two-thirds supermajority to convict a person being impeached. The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the
Secretary of State. In the case of impeachment of the president, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. During the
second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, some Senate Republicans argued that the Chief Justice was required to preside, even though Trump was no longer the President when the trial began. However, by a 55–45 vote, the Senate rejected a motion asserting that the trial was unconstitutional. in the regular federal or state courts, just as the convicted party was prior to being disqualified from office by the Senate. However, the
Former Presidents Act of 1958, which provides a pension and other benefits, does not extend to presidents who were removed from office following an impeachment conviction. Because of an amendment to that law in 2013, a former president who has been removed from office due to impeachment and conviction is still guaranteed lifetime
Secret Service protection. == History of federal constitutional impeachment ==