4

After President Nixon resigned, was any serious consideration (e.g. by members of Congress or important opinion leaders) given to proceeding with his impeachment and trial? The motive, of course, would have been to seek the maximum penalty of "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." (Quoted from Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.)

Edit. In the answer by sds it is asserted that the U.S. Constitution does not permit the impeachment of an official who has resigned. That assertion is probably wrong. (I am not a lawyer.) The precedent is the case of William Belknap, Secretary of War under President Grant. Quoting the Wikipedia article:

On March 1, Belknap and his counsel went before Clymer's committee, but Belknap declined to testify. On the morning of March 2, Treasury Secretary Benjamin Bristow told President Grant of Belknap's impending impeachment. In a White House meeting soon afterwards, Grant asked for Belknap's resignation. This move was clearly an effort to forestall the pending impeachment proceedings; by resigning first, Belknap could argue that Congress had no authority, since he was no longer in office. Grant accepted Belknap's resignation at 10:20 A.M. Clymer's committee was informed at 11:00 A.M. Although Belknap's resignation caused great commotion among House members, it did not prevent action by the Clymer committee. The committee unanimously passed resolutions to impeach Belknap and drew up five articles of impeachment to be sent to the Senate. Belknap, by then a private citizen, was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives. Speaker of the House Michael C. Kerr wrote to the Senate that Belknap resigned "with intent to evade the proceedings of impeachment against him." Belknap's case was constitutionally unprecedented and would serve as reference for nine other civilian officials' resignations before trial, including President Richard Nixon.

[. . . .]

Starting on April 5, 1876, Belknap was tried by the Senate, which was presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite. For several weeks Senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March. Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37-29 that it did. With 40 votes needed for conviction, the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority

  • 3
    @MarkC.Wallace You're asking me to source a quotation from the constitution of the United States? Seriously? – bof Mar 9 '17 at 3:24
  • 6
    With respect, @bof, not everybody is from North America, not every North American is familiar with the US constitution, and not everybody familiar with it will necessarily recognise a quote taken out of context so, yes, you do still need to source it. – Shimon bM Mar 9 '17 at 3:48
  • @MarkC.Wallace Pointing out the proceeding with impeachment after the resignation would have been unnecessary and pointless, "a complete waste of time", does not answer the question, did it have any support? The uproar over the pardon indicates that some of Nixon's enemies didn't think he had been punished enough. – bof Mar 9 '17 at 5:16
  • 1
    Mark's point is that all that an impeachment trial could have done would have been to ban Nixon from future office, something that most though was extremely unlikely anyway. Note that this had nothing to do with punishment outside the impeachment process, which was what the pardon was all about. – Gort the Robot Mar 9 '17 at 6:45
10

Legalese

When a person commits a crime, they become a subject to a judicial prosecution, with a notable exception of executives and other high government officials, who have to be Impeached first. In the unforgettable words of Benjamin Franklin

historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination

And impeachment (combined with the separation of powers, making Legislature independent from the Executive) is the nice alternative.

Think of impeachment (by the lower chamber of the Legislature - Representatives) as the analogue of indictment, and the trial is then conducted by the upper chamber of the Legislature (the Senate), as opposed to a court for common criminals.

History

When it became clear and certain that Nixon will be impeached, the latter resigned. This made the impeachment unnecessary to prosecute him - an ordinary prosecutor could open a case and he could be tried in an ordinary court.

However, after Nixon resigned, his successor Ford pardoned him:

...granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president...

making it impossible to prosecute Nixon in an ordinary court.

This leaves a "possibility" to impeach (in the Chamber of Representatives) and try (in the Senate) the resigned private citizen. This requires overcoming two hurdles in both chambers: the Representative voting to impeach / the Senator voting to convict must believe two things:

  1. Nixon is guilty
  2. A private citizen is a subject to impeachment

The Belknap episode (a Secretary of War resigned and was nevertheless impeached by Representatives but acquitted by Senate) created a precedent of 8 (eight)

civil officials facing impeachment have resigned from office and avoided a trial

Thus by the time of Watergate it was a well established law that a private citizen cannot be impeached, so it was extraordinary unlikely that a 2/3 majority of Senate would vote "yes" on the second hurdle above.

"American leaders" have better things to do than entertain impossibilities.

PS. The pardon was controversial: while putting an end to a multi-year chain of scandals, it shielded a crook from jail. Nevertheless, it was a legally unimpeachable move, so nothing could have been done about it.

PPS. To answer comments: there can be no "post-resignation impeachment" - like you cannot kill an already dead person. When Nixon resigned, he became a subject to common prosecution like any other criminal - there was no need to impeach him anymore. However, Ford's pardon removed any possibility to prosecute him - that's the meaning of the word pardon.

  • "American leaders" have better things to do than entertain impossibilities. So the question would be: at the time Ford pardoned Nixon, was there an effort by other politicians to pursue a post-resignation impeachment, or other form of punishment? If so, was that one of the causes of Ford's amnesty? – Luís Henrique Mar 10 '17 at 2:10
  • 3
    So, @sds, your PPS effectively answers the question: there was no pursuit of post-resignation impeachment, because this, under the American Constitution, was not a possibility. But then you would have to source that, because it is not a god-given fact as the impossibility of killing someone who is already dead; as I commented above, under the Brazilian Constitution it is possible to impeach a president who has already resigned. – Luís Henrique Mar 10 '17 at 13:20
  • 1
    @LuísHenrique: In the US, former executives enjoy no legal privileges (they have a security detail and a pension, but no immunity from prosecution), so we do not need to impeach then to try them in court. – sds Mar 10 '17 at 13:45
  • 1
    I did not ask about President Ford's pardon of Nixon, which is common knowledge. The only part of your answer that addresses my question is the first sentence of yoiur PPS, which asserts that "post-resignation impeachment" is impossible in the U.S. but cites no authority. I have serious doubts about the correctness of this assertion, as explained in the edit to my question. – bof Mar 10 '17 at 15:43
  • 1
    @sds Thanks. Is that a lay opinion, or are you a lawyer? As a layman I'd have thought the controlling precedents from 1876 were the House's unanimous vote to impeach and the Senate's 37–29 decision to accept jurisdiction despite Belknap's resignation. In how many of those 8 cases was the case dropped for lack of jurisdiction and not simply because the prosecutors were satisfied with removal and had no interest in pursuing the maximum penalty? Impeached persons are not always disqualified from future office; a current member of Congress (Alcee Hastings, D, FL) is an impeached & convicted judge. – bof Mar 11 '17 at 1:42
2

No,

The impeachment motion had made it through a House committee, although the actual impeachment had yet to be voted on by the full House of Representatives The latter process, as well as Nicon's trial (and almost certain removal) in the Senate was short-circuited by Nixon's resignation.

The purpose of impeachment and trial of an elected official is the removal from office of that official. Once Nixon resigned, the purpose had been accomplished, and there was no need to proceed further in Congress.

Of course, Nixon could have been tried in "judicial" courts until the Ford pardon made that moot.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.