Constitutional Framer's Made Impeachment Political

How sure do the Senators need to be?

You would think there is a very high standard, or burden of proof necessary to impeach and/or remove a sitting president. On the contrary, there is very little direction on how certain a Senator must be in order to find the President guilty. It is up to each and every Senator not only to determine the guilt or innocence of the President, but also by what standard that decision should be made.

What is the Burden of Proof for Impeachment?

Crazy as this sounds, the burden of proof is not defined. Over the years there have been arguments for “beyond a reasonable doubt” and for “by a preponderance of the evidence”, but neither has been adopted. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal cases, where a person’s liberty is at stake. Preponderance is the standard for civil cases where it is about money or assets. In the end, since the Constitution is silent on this matter, there is no standard by which to measure the totality of the evidence. Read More

Is the Decision Political or Legal?

Since there is no defined burden of proof, there really is nothing to say the decision on impeachment or removal cannot be based on the slightest amount of evidence. This makes the decision a political one and not a decision based on law. Without parameters on how this decision is to be made, it is nothing more than a popularity contest. The worst part is that the popularity is amongst cronies and enemies, and not the public who should have the last say.

Should there be a Constitutional Amendment

The only thing that makes sense is to properly define the burden of proof by which a sitting President may be impeached and then removed from office. The only way to make such a change would be for a Constitutional Amendment creating clear language on whether the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or a preponderance of the evidence. Until we have such clarity, the decision is being left up to the political pressures of parties and not a true evaluation of the facts. The Framer’s got this one wrong.