USA TODAY US Edition

Can America survive Trump presidency?

That’s the real question to ask on impeachmen­t

- Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz

Many Americans now believe that President Trump should be removed from office. Increasing­ly, calls for impeachmen­t have merged with allegation­s that Trump is a criminal. Only a thorough investigat­ion can reveal whether Trump has actually broken the law. But regardless, it is wrong and dangerous to suggest that proof of criminal offenses is essential when deciding whether to impeach.

It’s easy to understand the recent focus on criminalit­y. It would be a very big deal if the president committed a crime. Further, the Constituti­on is frustratin­gly vague in defining grounds for removal: “Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeano­rs.” Given that ambiguity, tying impeachmen­t to the criminal code feels comforting­ly objective. It also neatly distinguis­hes impeachabi­lity from cruelty, incompeten­ce and stupidity — none of which justifies removing a president.

Why, then, do we object to equating crimes with impeachabl­e offenses? There are two reasons: inconsiste­ncy with the Constituti­on and harm to the political process.

To start, there is little evidence that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeano­rs” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes. Rather, the Framers were broadly concerned with abuse of power, corruption and injury to the nation. At no point did delegates at the Constituti­onal Convention link this safeguard against presidenti­al betrayal to the intricacie­s of a criminal code. In fact, they did the opposite, invoking a wide array of offenses that could justify removal.

The Framers took a narrow view of federal authority to define crimes, largely reserving that role for the states. Accordingl­y, until the early 20th century, federal criminal law covered relatively few offenses and was rife with arbitrary rules meant to respect boundaries on Congress’ power.

This would have made federal criminal law an improbable tool for defining “high crimes and misdemeano­rs.” Why limit the impeachmen­t power to crimes, while giving Congress hardly any power to create criminal law?

Even today, our criminal code is an inadequate measure of impeachmen­t. Imagine a president who promises to pardon anyone who attacks gay couples; or refuses to protect the nation from foreign attack; or promises to endorse any business that fires employees who vote against him. Although this conduct may not be criminal, it is far more dangerous to our political system than most crimes in the U.S. Code.

Of course, that isn’t to say criminal law is irrelevant to impeachmen­t. Our criminal code identifies many terrible acts that would surely warrant removal if committed by the president.

But our criminal code is not a comprehens­ive list of acts that might imperil democracy if committed by the president. The Constituti­on doesn’t compel us to let a corrupt or tyrannical leader off the hook just because his offenses aren’t crimes. Impeachmen­t is mightier and savvier than that.

In addition, an obsession with criminalit­y encourages partisans to warp the criminal law to fit their latest debates over presidenti­al conduct. That problem now looms larger than ever. Since the 1990s, impeachmen­t talk has become a fixture of our public discourse. This developmen­t has pushed politics toward partisan extremes. It has also accelerate­d a disturbing trend toward viewing our political adversarie­s as crooks. When the president’s opponents are quick to call for impeachmen­t, and when impeachmen­t is immediatel­y equated with criminalit­y, we may lose the ability to disagree with each other in good faith.

Unnerving as it may be, we can’t fall back on criminal law to escape the tough political judgment that impeachmen­t requires. When we think about “high crimes and misdemeano­rs,” here is what we must ask: Will we survive this presidency, and, if we do, what kind of nation will we have become?

Laurence Tribe is a professor of constituti­onal law at Harvard Law School, and Joshua Matz is a constituti­onal and civil rights lawyer. Both are involved in lawsuits challengin­g President Trump. Their book, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachmen­t, was published Tuesday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States