Search

The conventional wisdom is that the two impeachments of Donald Trump demonstrated the ineffectiveness of impeachment as a remedy for serious presidential misconduct. Meeting the constitutional threshold for conviction and removal requiring at least two-thirds approval of the Senate is practically impossible so long as the members of the President's party in Congress control at least a third of the seats in the Senate and are united in opposition to his impeachment and conviction. This Article challenges this conventional wisdom and argues instead that the two Trump impeachments have enduring effects on Trump's political future and legacy, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of senators condemned his actions in his second trial and the voluminous records of his misconduct serving as the basis for his first impeachment. The Article also assesses the lessons the trials have taught about the effectiveness of various safeguards against the misconduct of presidents and the lawyers who enable their corruption., TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1312 I. IMPEACHMENT'S IMPACT ON PRESIDENTIAL REPUTATIONS AND LEGACIES 1316 II. THE NONJUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED IN THE TWO TRUMP IMPEACHMENTS AND TRIALS 1318 III. COORDINATING CONSTITUTIONAL [...]

Although we have a vast understanding of the causes and institutional impacts of impeachments, we know little about their policy outcomes. As such events occur during crises, new incumbents are expected to promote policy reforms. To identify how they influence foreign policy, I applied a mostdifferent-system design to compare the cases of Lugo in Paraguay (2012) and Rousseff in Brazil (2016). Internally, impeachments politicize foreign policy, linking the external agenda to domestic politics. Externally, they may restrict foreign policy alternatives, depending on political actors’ perceptions of process legitimacy, ideological proximity, and state resources. I found that politicization after impeachments does not necessarily bring decisionmaking decentralization. Instead, actors capture the foreign policy agenda for political purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will examine how two newsletter collections reported the impeachments of the former ministers of Queen Anne in 1715, the trial of the earl of Oxford in 1717 and that of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester in 1723. It will also consider how the two collections relate to one another and touch on the way the newsletters' reporting of proceedings across parliamentary business during the reign of George I compares with that presented in the printed press. It will thus attempt to offer insights into why people continued to subscribe to manuscript news services in a period where print had traditionally been seen to be rapidly overtaking the older, more intensive news form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Although we have a vast understanding of the causes and institutional impacts of impeachments, we know little about their policy outcomes. As such events occur during crises, new incumbents are expected to promote policy reforms. To identify how they influence foreign policy, I applied a most-different-system design to compare the cases of Lugo in Paraguay (2012) and Rousseff in Brazil (2016). Internally, impeachments politicize foreign policy, linking the external agenda to domestic politics. Externally, they may restrict foreign policy alternatives, depending on political actors’ perceptions of process legitimacy, ideological proximity, and state resources. I found that politicization after impeachments does not necessarily bring decision-making decentralization. Instead, actors capture the foreign policy agenda for political purposes.

The article discusses impeachment was inserted into the Constitution of the United States as a tool of national self-preservation. Although its most common use has been as a quotidian house-cleaning device for dispensing with corrupt or egregiously unsuitable federal judges otherwise unfadeable due to life tenure, the American framers conceived impeachment's real and essential function to be the ejection.

On May 11, 2018, Maria Lourdes Sereno was removed from office as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. She had been a vocal critic of controversial President Rodrigo Duterte, and he had labeled her as an “enemy.” While she was under legislative impeachment investigation, Duterte’s solicitor general filed a quo warranto petition in the Supreme Court to challenge her right to hold office. The Supreme Court responded to that petition by ordering her removal, which her supporters claimed was politically-motivated and possibly unconstitutional. The story of Chief Justice Sereno should give urgency to the need for us to consider the proposition that maintaining the rule of law can be difficult, and that attacks on judicial independence can pose a grave threat to democracy. The article presented here considers the impeachment of Chief Justice David Brock in the American state of New Hampshire in 2000, identifying the most significant institutional causes and consequences of an event that presented a crisis for the judiciary and the state. It offers a case study for the readers of this journal to reflect not only on the removal of Chief Justice Sereno, but also on the kinds of constitutional issues, such as judicial independence, judicial accountability, and separation of powers in any democracy, as arising from in conflicts between the judiciary and another branch of government.

The article discusses the reform of Federal Rule of Evidence 609, focusing on prior conviction impeachment. It explores improvements inspired by state models, specifically those of Hawaiʻi and Kansas, which restrict the use of prior convictions more tightly than Rule 609. It evaluates these state models and proposes a new framework for reform.

This article will examine how two newsletter collections reported the impeachments of the former ministers of Queen Anne in 1715, the trial of the earl of Oxford in 1717 and that of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester in 1723. It will also consider how the two collections relate to one another and touch on the way the newsletters' reporting of proceedings across parliamentary business during the reign of George I compares with that presented in the printed press. It will thus attempt to offer insights into why people continued to subscribe to manuscript news services in a period where print had traditionally been seen to be rapidly overtaking the older, more intensive news form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary campaigns, six women, the most in history, announced their candidacy for the presidency. Using computational topic modeling and network analysis of 84,000 newspaper articles (2.2 million paragraphs), we analyze how gender and electability was discussed during the Primaries. Results reveal that male candidates, and especially Joe Biden, were frequently compared with the incumbent, Donald Trump, while coverage of female candidates focused directly on social policy. Trump's attack on Biden during the impeachment process produced a lasting effect by promoting discourse topics traditionally dominated by men. This crowded out the topics emphasized by women, such as health care and education. Women candidates' press coverage was also more reactionary than men's. Although explicit reference to gender as a discourse topic has decreased, which suggests growing gender parity within the political process, gendered policy salience emerges transitively in comparison with the incumbent. Transitive policy salience emerges as a key explanatory variable that articulates the indirect path media coverage can lead to the marginalization of women candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Comunicação & Sociedade is the property of Revista Comunicacao & Sociedade and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses violation of the Emoluments Clauses was the original sin of the Trump Administration, and it began essentially on the first day of Trump in office when he said he was not going to give up his more than 150 businesses. He was not going to stop doing business with foreign governments, and he was not taking any pledge about refusing to take money from the federal government.

The article offers information related to the impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake, the 43rd Chief Justice in Sri Lanka in 2012 Topics discussed include the implication of the undertaking for Sri Lankans, the importance of good governance of judges to prevent such judiciary action, and the role of Standing Orders of Parliament and Legislative Bodies for the impeachment decision.

INTRODUCTION I. CHECKS AND BALANCES, DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY, AND INTER-BRANCH COOPERATION II. ATTACKING CHECKS AND BALANCES: FOUR EPISODES A. ELIMATING CONGRESS'S FOREIGN POLICY ROLE: THE IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL B. SHUTTING DOWN THE [...]

Copyright of Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada is the property of Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Portal de Periodicos Eletronicos Cientificos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the U.S. Senate's role in conducting impeachment trials and adjudications of presidential impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump. It mentions impeachment proceedings are not criminal cases in which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments' criminal procedural protections themselves apply. It also mentions protections of the Sixth Amendment's right of accused persons to confront witnesses against criminal prosecutions.

As demonstrated by the threatened, attempted, and successful removal of elected prosecutors nationwide, the balance that has traditionally existed between local prosecutors and state officials has turned into a power struggle over where to draw the line between prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial misconduct. Because of this changing dynamic, the mechanisms for removing local prosecutors have entered the national spotlight and have set up a conflict between the discretion of prosecutors and of those who seek to remove them. This conflict has resulted in removal decisions that are used to target political adversaries rather than as a legitimate check on abuses of prosecutorial power. This Comment argues that the current mechanisms for removing elected prosecutors allow officials and voters to substitute their discretion for that of the prosecutor. This dueling exercise of discretion disrupts the necessary exercise of prosecutorial discretion and makes the removal procedure liable to abuse rather than an effective tool for addressing misconduct. In response, it suggests a model framework for prosecutorial removal that reduces the likelihood that the process will be used arbitrarily but is still effective for voters seeking to hold prosecutors responsible for misconduct. This Comment also provides a new resource for prosecutors, researchers, voters, and other stakeholders who seek to understand the process for removing local prosecutors and the implications of doing so., INTRODUCTION 574 I. THE CATEGORIES OF LOCAL PROSECUTOR REMOVAL MECHANISMS 577 A. Recall Elections 579 B. Impeachment 581 C. Judicial Proceedings 584 D. Oversight Commission and Pending Legislation 586 II. [...]

The article focuses on rationales for changing the general approach to prior conviction impeachment in the U.S. It mentions menu of reform proposals, ranging from eliminating impeachment with prior convictions to less comprehensive modifications. It also mentions prior conviction impeachment deters defendants from offering valuable testimony and steers them away from trial and impeachment compounds the racial bias of the criminal system.

The article discusses the first trial, Republican Senators voted to prohibit the trial managers, the actual prosecutors, from subpoenaing any witnesses or documents. They won because they were in the majority. Before both trials, enough Republican Senators, known as jurors, announced that they had already made up their minds to acquit the President-that the not-guilty verdicts were essentially rendered even before the trial started.

The article analyzes the meaning and ambiguity of Section Three of the 14th Amendment governing the engagement of a U.S. officer in insurrection or rebellion. Topics discussed include civil office under the U.S., congressional precedent of the William Blount's case wherein the Impeachment Clause made reference to civil officers of the U.S., framing and ratification of Section Three, the U.S. presidency and the Electors Clause, the 1867 Reconstruction Acts and 1872 election.

Discussions of the President's motive are commonplace in public discourse and public law scholarship. But the President's motive is usually mentioned in passing, as an issue of moral or political, but not legal, significance. To the extent presidential motive has been analyzed as a legal issue, it has been largely confined to discussions of impeachment or, more recently, violations of individual rights. There has yet to be a full-length scholarly treatment of whether the President's motive is relevant to the legality of her conduct as a matter of Article II--that is, whether the President's motive is relevant to all presidential exercises of power. This Article takes on this task. It argues that Article II requires the President to act motivated by the public interest, rather than her personal interest, in exercising power. It then normatively defends this requirement against arguments that motive ought to be irrelevant to the permissibility of conduct, concluding that inquiry into the President's motive can be justified on both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist grounds, although it is more justified in some areas than others. The Article then explains how we can distinguish between personally interested and publicinterested motivations in the context of an elected representative, like the President, seeking to gain popularity, and identifies a mixed motive standard for when the President acts based on both permissible publicinterested and impermissible personally interested motives. Finally, the Article puts forward options for enforcement of the President's motive requirement that could be implemented inside the executive branch, by Congress, or by courts, sensitive to where motive inquiry is most and least normatively justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observed from a wider historical perspective, the most recent period of the constitutional life of the United States of America risks to be remembered as the one during which the presidential impeachment procedure was used incomparably more often than ever before. This sometimes attracts particular attention to the topic of criminal responsibility of the President, on which the Constitution itself remains silent. At the same time, legislation and jurisprudence seem to have been shying away from addressing this important and rather actual issue. The question whether the presidential immunity protects a sitting or a former president from arrest, trial, or punishment for deeds committed during the presidential term of office thus represents a particularly complex legal puzzler. This is particularly the case since the traditional checks-and-balances system appears to be displaying signs of weakness due to an overtly politicized procedure, notably in the absence of firm legal guidelines or clear theoretical perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on scant history of impeachment of executive branch officials that led up to ratification of Constitution. Topics discussed include Congress's impeachment authority is best understood as a weapon to remove officers from positions of public power; concomitant power to disqualify an officer from future offices of public trust does not transform the impeachment remedy into a potential Sword of Damocles and impeachment clauses in Article I and II of the Constitution.

Examines the concern with the policy of impeachment in the United States (US). Information on the cases of political figures in the US history which pertain to impeachment; Conditions why US President Bill Clinton was acquitted from his impeachment trial; Problem of the independent counsel law.

We develop a unified theory of presidential instability to explain why presidents are removed from office through military coups or through legal procedures. While some causal factors motivate opponents to overthrow the president irrespective of the specific mechanism employed, other factors expand the relative capabilities of groups inclined to pursue military or civilian action. The first group of variables, including economic recession, protests, and radicalization, explains why presidents fall. The second set of variables, including regional diffusion, partisan support for the executive, and normative support for democracy, explains how they are ousted. We test this theory using discrete-time event history models with sample selection on a novel database for 19 Latin American countries between 1945 and 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Estudios Socio-Jurídicos is the property of Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document is an annotated literature overview that covers various topics. The first section focuses on legal history and the careers of jurists who were involved in the Nazi regime. The second section discusses the challenges faced by American democracy, including the experiences of a congressman involved in the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. The third section examines the challenges faced by the progressive left in the Democratic Party during the Biden era. The fourth section explores the history and impact of the Fridays for Future and Scientists for Future movements, which advocate for climate action. The final section includes reprints of classic works on peace and Zionism. [Extracted from the article]

This research presents the concept of testimonial User-Generated Content (tUGC): media content generated by ordinary citizens that witness an extraordinary event and publish it on their own channels. Rooted on the crossroads of UGC and Witnessing studies, this article provides a definition and a proposition of operationalization of tUGC in a case analysis, using two protests against former Brazilian president Rousseff's impeachment in 2016 as case of study. Results suggest three main patterns of tUGC production, named as political, journalistic and expressive. Quantitative analysis points to a high frequency of production but to low levels of diffusion of tUGC overall in the context of the analysed case. Finally, results suggest external factors seem to have effect on general patterns of tUGC production and circulation. Discussion and further developments are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Autumn Stultza, a single mother suffering from severe tonsil stones, Melinda Hille, a Type 1 Diabetic forced to choose between eating and paying for medication, Stephanie Doyle, a mother of three unable to afford her eczema medications, and approximately 275,000 other Missourians, August 10, 2021 was a good day.

The article discusses Manhattan Project caused death and destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sparked a nuclear arms race around the world.1 The Project's legacy is most closely associated with Los Alamos, New Mexico, the site of the primary research laboratory. But, the primary research site, smaller project sites, and disposal sites throughout the country have been plagued by environmental consequences.

The article discusses the political in the sense that they are part of our democracy, and not political in the sense that they are lawless or partisan. In this short Article, I expand on this claim, arguing that these "political" safeguards emerge from what Professor Charles Black called basic constitutional structures and relationships.

Measured by any yardstick, it is hard to think that the first impeachment of President Donald Trump was particularly successful. But there are important broader questions raised particularly by the first Trump impeachment that have significance for how we think about the impeachment power moving forward. If future impeachment efforts are to be more successful, or even useful, Congress will have to understand the nature of the constitutional task that it is undertaking. As the House contemplates making use of the impeachment power and the Senate contemplates whether to convict an officer in an impeachment trial, there are some basic questions that must be asked in any impeachment episode. What is an impeachable offense? Is this kind of behavior impeachable? Does this instance of misconduct justify impeachment? It should not have been hard for the House to answer the first two questions in regard to the first Trump impeachment. The third question was the more challenging to answer, and the House struggled to answer it. This Article argues that abusing the powers of the presidency for the sake of purely personal interests is well within the traditional scope of the impeachment power. In order to assess whether an officer has abused power in that way, members of Congress must take care to deliberate across the political aisle so as to identify and resolve possible good-faith explanations for an officer's behavior. A House that does not bother to curb its own partisan instincts risks abusing its own constitutional authority by rushing headlong into an impeachment that does not meet the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. Even after the House and the Senate have come to an understanding of the scope of impeachable offenses and each has satisfied itself that an officer has committed deeds that fall within that scope, they must still decide whether an impeachment and a conviction and removal is warranted. Those decisions are necessarily political judgments about what risks the country faces and how they are best navigated. If Congress is to contemplate pursuing an impeachment, it should have a clear view of what it is trying to accomplish and why impeachment is the best path to getting there. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Or... this is what happens when you ask a debater to conduct an impeachment trial. In classical rhetoric, you often hear that an argument must change based on the forum, [...]

In the fall of 2021, the South Dakota House of Representatives began reviewing material to consider whether or not to impeach South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg for his conduct [...]

I. INTRODUCTION 159 II. THE OFFENSES 161 III. IMPEACHMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA 164 IV. THE ESSAYS IN CONTEXT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 169 V. CHOICES MADE DURING THE RAVNSBORG IMPEACHMENT 173 [...]

On April 12, 2022, the House of Representatives voted by one vote to impeach South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg for his actions regarding a 2020 car crash that resulted [...]

This article is intended as both a historical account of events surrounding South Dakota's first impeachment trial and as a guide for those in other states (hopefully not South Dakota [...]