Civics 101 — Impeachment, or How to Bring Charges to Remove a Federal Government Official from Office

Jane Jewell • August 2, 2022

Don’t like the mayor or governor? Think the local sheriff is lazy? Convinced that Sen. So-and-So is corrupt? Disapprove of the president? Well, you could wait and vote them out in the next election, but what if the situation seems very serious and you want them out now? Then you may feel like joining the cry to “have the scoundrel impeached.”

However, at the national level, impeachment is the first step of a multi-step process contained in the United States Constitution to authorize the removal of government officials from office. It doesn’t apply to ordinary citizens, just to certain federal officials. That process begins with impeachment in the House of Representatives.

There are many misunderstandings about what impeachment can and can’t do. In fact, it can’t do what many assume are its main purposes; impeachment can’t remove someone from office nor can it impose a fine or send anyone to jail. Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were both impeached but neither was removed from office. The impeachment procedure only allows the House to investigate and then recommend for or against handing an impeached official over to the Senate for trial. The House impeaches or indicts; the Senate convicts and removes from office, or acquits.

The impeachment process is much like a grand jury that meets to evaluate if there is enough evidence for a particular criminal case to go to trial.

England used a form of impeachment as far back as the 14th Century. Ironically, Britain's use of impeachment began to decline at about the same time that an impeachment process adapted from England's process was written into the new U.S. Constitution. The last impeachment in Britain was in 1806. While still legally available, Britons rely these days on a vote of no-confidence when they want to oust leadership.

Although the rules and grounds for impeachment vary, every state except Oregon has an impeachment clause in their state constitutions. In fact, several of these state impeachment clauses — including Maryland’s first constitution — were adopted before the U.S. Constitution was even written. Recently, in 2021, the New York state legislature began an impeachment inquiry into then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, but Cuomo resigned before he was impeached. In February of this year, a Trump-supported Republican lawmaker in Maryland introduced a bill in the state legislature to impeach Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. The bill failed.

The process for the Federal level is outlined in the U.S. Constitution; and some relevant parts are quoted below.

Step 1. Charges or accusations against a government official are presented to the House by a House member or group of members — similar to introducing a bill.

Step 2. The House or a House committee investigates the charges and writes up Articles of Impeachment. Hearings are held.

Step 3. The full House votes yea or nay on the Articles of Impeachment. If the Articles do not pass, then the impeachment process ends and the accused remains in office. If the Articles pass, then the accused person has been officially impeached and the case is turned over to the Senate for trial. Technically, impeachment is over at this point.

Step 4. Trial and vote in the Senate. Senate rules state that the trial must begin at 1:00 pm on the day after the Articles of Impeachment are delivered to the Senate. However, there is no rule or time-table about how or when the House must deliver the articles.

Step 5. If the Senate votes to convict, then the impeached official is automatically and immediately removed from office. There is no other automatic penalty — no fine or imprisonment may be imposed.

Bonus Step. The Senate, in a separate, second vote, may also prohibit the convicted and removed official from ever holding public office again. This prohibition is not automatic upon conviction.

To pass, the Articles of Impeachment need a simple majority of those representatives present and voting. Today, if all 435 members of the House of Representatives are present and vote, passage would require 216 votes in favor of impeachment. While impeachment by the House only requires a simple majority, conviction in the Senate requires a supermajority of two-thirds of those present and voting. Almost everyone — House and Senate — shows up for these votes.

There are some broad conditions and limits. Articles of Impeachment may be brought only against the "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States" and only if they are accused of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Treason and bribery are relatively clear and well-understood terms, having basically the same meaning today as they did in Colonial times. However, the Constitution did not precisely define “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” or "civil Officer of the United States." Over the years, there has been a lot of argument and disagreement over these terms.

At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a common term and generally referred to inappropriate and/or illegal activities by those who held a powerful or “high” office, especially when the office itself was used for personal profit, to play favorites, or to promote personal agendas and biases. Most impeachments have been for high crimes and misdemeanors.

While actual impeachment votes in the House are rather rare, demands for impeachment and threats of impeachments, especially of presidents, have been common throughout U.S. history. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution before the calls for impeachment of various officials started way back during George Washington’s administration. The first impeachment vote in the House was in 1797, the second in 1803. In total, the House has initiated impeachment proceedings 63 times but most were unsuccessful or charges were dropped without a vote.

To date, the House has voted to impeach 21 times, on charges against 20 people. Three presidents have been impeached — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. None were convicted.

Only eight impeachments of the 21 have resulted in a Senate conviction — all of those were federal judges. Another seven judges were impeached but acquitted in the Senate. Two other judges — one in 1873 and another in 1926 — were impeached but they resigned and the proceedings were halted before a Senate trial.

So far, no impeachments have charged treason. Three were for bribery; two of those officials were tried and removed from office by the Senate. The third resigned before trial and was — ironically — later acquitted by the Senate.

Impeachment is not part of the legal system but a congressional judgment on “fitness for office.”

Neither conviction nor acquittal affects the official’s exposure to legal prosecution. The accused person can be indicted in criminal court or sued in civil court regarding the same charges. If convicted in the legal system, there can be fines, imprisonment, or other punishments even if the person was acquitted in the House or Senate.

Likewise, impeachment charges do not need to be for actual “crimes,” that is, illegal activities. Officials have been impeached and convicted on charges of drunkenness and biased decisions. Andrew Johnson was charged in two articles for rude language along with bad behavior that reflected badly on the office of the presidency. These actions did not necessarily break any laws.

Conversely, some actual crimes have been determined to not amount to high crimes or misdemeanors. The Judiciary Committee of the House previously determined that any tax fraud committed by then-president Richard Nixon was not impeachable because it was committed in Nixon’s private life and was not an abuse of his authority as president.

Benjamin Franklin said that impeachment was a needed recourse for when a president “has rendered himself obnoxious.” In 1970, almost two hundred years later, Gerald Ford, then House minority leader and later president, added that "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Sources and More information can be found at these websites:

40 Facts About the History of Impeachment, Trista, History Collection, May 26, 2019.

https://historycollection.com/40-facts-about-the-history-of-impeachment-and-the-presidents-who-couldnt-escape-its-fate/

Constitution Facts

https://www.constitutionfacts.com

Impeachment, history.com editors, History, Feb. 21, 2021.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/impeachment-in-us-history

Impeachment Fast Facts, CNN Politics, Sept. 27, 2021.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/world/impeachment-fast-facts/index.html

Impeachment in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Jane Jewell is a writer, editor, photographer, and teacher. She has worked in news, publishing, and as the director of a national writer's group. She lives in Chestertown with her husband Peter Heck, a ginger cat named Riley, and a lot of books.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Megan Outten Launches Campaign for Wicomico County Council, District 7

By Friends of Megan Outten • July 29, 2025

Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com

“Turtles All The Way Down”

By John Christie • July 29, 2025

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

“Andy Harris Just Made the Most Dangerous Vote of His Career”

By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co • July 15, 2025

Marylanders will not forget this vote.

How Many Will Be Kicked Off Medicaid in MD-01 Because of Andy Harris?

By Jan Plotczyk • July 9, 2025

More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.

Six Reasons Why the House Budget Bill Will Hurt Rural America

By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser • May 21, 2025

Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Who Will SNAP Cuts Affect in Maryland? On the Eastern Shore?

By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities • May 21, 2025

The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.