Thread by @CMcKNichols

Let's look back at the 1787 debates over the meaning of impeachment. For me Madison's ideas are central: He "thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate...."

https://twitter.com/CassAGood/status/1177234136131624960

"...The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

"The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity..."

"...for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness..."

"...of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, & either of them might be..."

fatal to the Republic." -James Madison, Constitution Convention Debates, July 20, 1787 avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/d…

For definitions useful today, I'd suggest turning to Hamilton, however. Federalist Papers # 65, 1788: "A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective...."

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abu"se or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL,..."

" as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."

"In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other;..."

and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."-Alexander Hamilton, March 7, 1788 avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/f…

The point of this thread isn't to suggest the Founders got it all right but, rather, to help frame ways we might understand restraints on the presidency, impeachment as a "national inquest", & the clear intent to rubuke "misconduct of public men" & "violation(s) of public trust."

Thanks so much
@threadreaderapp
unroll please