|
The Impeachment
of Andrew Johnson |
|
»Impeachment, Trial, and Acquittal |
back to
the Andrew Johnson Home Page
back to the intro to this section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE PRESIDENT AND THE LAW
Before this paper is
issued the question of impeachment will probably be decided. The offense of the President
is plain. He assumes to put himself above the law, upon the ground that in his judgment
the law is unconstitutional. A plea more preposterous can hardly be conceived, for if he
be the judge of one law he is the judge of all, and no law will be executed until he
approves it. Mr. James Brooks, in the very unwise and braggadocio speech which he made in
the House upon the presentation of the resolution of impeachment, said that the President
had as much right to judge of the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act as the
Senate or the House. Undoubtedly he has; but the Constitution expressly declares that if
the President objects to an act upon the ground of want of constitutionality, or upon any
other ground, if he can not persuade Congress to agree with him, and the act is again
passed by a two-thirds vote, it becomes the law of the land, notwithstanding the judgment
of the President.The New York Times
echoes the remark of Mr. Brooks in saying of the President: "But it can scarcely be
unlawful for him to perform an act in violation of an unconstitutional law, which is
simply no law at all; and until the validity of this law shall have been decided by the
Supreme Court the question of the Presidents guilt or innocence can scarcely be
entertained." That is to say, if the President vetoes a bill, and it becomes a law
despite the veto, the President may set it aside until the Supreme Court declares it to be
valid. Now if the President is not bound by the law, nobody else is; and the Times
declares that no law is binding, even if passed by a two-thirds vote of Congress, until
the Supreme Court has approved it. Such a theory reduces the function of the
representatives of the people to the mere initiation of laws, and vests the real power of
the Government exclusively in the Executive and Judiciary.
The Tenure-of-Office Act was passed by
Congress, vetoed by the President, passed over his veto by the constitutional majority,
and became the law. The President acknowledged it to be a law by conforming to its
requirements, and explaining to the Senate why he had suspended the Secretary of War. The
Senate did not approve the suspension, and there the matter should have ended. But by
subsequently assuming to remove the Secretary the President deliberately and distinctly
violates the law which forbids the removal of any civil officer appointed with the consent
of the Senate without its concurrence if it be in session. There could not be a more
flagrant defiance of law or usurpation of authority. If the President, as we have said,
may do it in the case of one law, however constitutionally enacted, until the Supreme
Court had passed upon it, and the consequent confusion and uncertainty would be
intolerable. The assumption of Mr. Brooks and of the New York Times that a law may
be held unconstitutional until pronounced otherwise by the court is subversive
of the government and of civil order; and the question ought, therefore, to be distinctly
settled whether the President has the power of dispensing with the laws? a power which the
English two hundred years ago dethroned King James II for claiming.
The debate in the House need not have
been so bitter. It was useless to answer the taunts and threats of Mr. James Brooks. It
was foolish in Mr. Ingersoll to predict that Mr. Wade would be in the White House within
ten days, and equally foolish in Mr. Pruyn to deny it. Mr. Farnsworths tirade
against the Democratic Party was elicited by Mr. Brookss claim that the brute force
was upon his side. The truth is, that Mr. James Brooks, who vainly aspires to some kind of
leadership in the last party to which he has joined himself, very feebly initiated in the
debate the part which Davis, Benjamin, and the other conspirators played in the session of
1860-61. His speech required no answer, and the orators of the majority should have
confined themselves to the simple point at issue. Moreover, there should have been no
attempt to restrict debate. There is no occasion for excessive haste. The constitution
provides every method of proceeding. The President will not resist impeachment, and upon
this simple point of deliberate violation of the law, the only point which should be
raised, his trial, if ordered, need not last long.
Articles Related to the Impeachment, Trial, and
Acquittal:
To see a list of the related
articles go back to the intro to
this section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website design © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
All Content © 1998-2005 HarpWeek, LLC
Please submit questions to webmaster@harpweek.com
|
|