If nothing else, the impeachment proceedings have encouraged us to think about some interesting hypotheticals.  Here are a few:

1.  Can former Presidents be impeached?  Leading originalist-oriented blogger Keith Whittington says yes.  But I am not so sure.  The Constitution does not answer the question directly.  But it seems to contemplate a process focused on current officeholders.  Article II, Section 4 (we all now know) says that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Article I, Section 3 says “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”  Nothing in the text refers directly to impeachment of former officers.  (Professor Whittingtion notes that some state constitutions did refer to impeaching former officers, but the Constitution’s failure to adopt that langauge seems to cut against, rther than favor, the existence of the power.  True, one could say that an impeachment could be used just to disqualify a former officeholder from future office.  But if so, why would impeachment be limited to former officeholders?  Could a person be preemptively impeached before becoming an officeholder?  Professor Whittington indicates that the House could not impeach a private citizen.  I agree that seems odd, but if impeachment isn’t limited to current officeholders, I don’t see any other tenable textual limit.  I think the implication of the text is that the process is to remove current officeholders.

2. Can Presidents be impeached more than once?  I think clearly yes.  Nothing in the Constitution suggests otherwise, so it’s up to the House to decide.   And just because a President is acquitted of only allegation should not insulate him from other claims of wrongdoing.  Probably a President could even be impeached more than once for the same conduct, if for example new evidence came to light, since double jeopardy protection only applies to criminal charges.

3.  Can the House approve articles of impeachment and not deliver them to the Senate?  (This one is suddenly quite relevant).  I say yes (Noah Feldman suggests otherwise here).  The Constitution says nothing on the matter (as in #2) other than saying that the House has sole power of impeachment, so it’s up to the House.  The House could decide, for example, that sending the articles to the Senate is futile.

4.  Can the Senate hold a trial if the House approves articles of impeachment but does not deliver them?  Initially I thought the answer would be yes, on the ground that the Senate has sole power to try impeachments.  But I am persuaded by Andrew Hyman’s argument that impeachment does not really happen until the House delivers its accusations to the Senate.  If that’s right, then there can be no trial before delivery, because there is no impeachment (and so nothing to try) before delivery.  (Josh Blackman argues otherwise here, but he does not address Andrew’s point).

5. Can the Senate summarily dismiss an impeachment?  A number of commentators argue no, because the Constitution says that the Senate has power to “try” impeachments, so there must be an actual trial.  But reading the Constitution closely shows no obligation on the Senate’s part to do anything.  The Senate has power to try impeachments, but no duty to try them.  I agree that if the Senate wants to remove someone from office, it must hold a trial (leaving aside what exactly that requires).  But if the Senate does not want to remove someone from office, it doesn’t need to do anything.  The situation is parallel to the House sending the Senate a bill on the hope that the Senate will approve it, or the President nominating someone in hopes of obtaining the Senate’s advice and consent.  The existence of a power does not imply the existence of a duty.  (Josh Blackman agrees here, expressly citing the Merrick Garland nomination).

NOTEThis post was originally published at The Originalism Blog, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.

Michael D. Ramsey
Latest posts by Michael D. Ramsey (see all)

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.