30

If an impeached President (but not one removed from office) is elected for a second term, can they be impeached again during their second term if the House decides they committed new impeachable offenses? If not, is a previously impeached President more or less 'immune' to repercussions for further misconduct?

Does the boundary between terms matter, or could a President theoretically be impeached twice in the same term?

Is there any case of this happening for another office?

  • 25
    POTUS is one of (the?) only elected impeachable office holders, so there's no precedent.He can be impeached every day for the same thing, or for something he did before he even took office, or for wearing a tan suit. whatever half+1 of the house decides a "high crime" is. – dandavis Dec 12 '19 at 21:42
  • 6
    Upvote for the tan suit controversy ;-) – Mawg says reinstate Monica Dec 13 '19 at 10:34
  • 3
    @dandavis: The Vice President can also be impeached, but that's it for federal elected officials. The Constitution says that the "President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" can be impeached. The Senate concluded in 1797 (!) that members of congress are not "civil officers" under this definition; if a member of congress behaves badly, the "proper" remedy is expulsion. – Michael Seifert Dec 13 '19 at 15:48
  • 1
    And, of course, no Vice President has ever been impeached, so that doesn't help with precedent. – Michael Seifert Dec 13 '19 at 15:52
  • 1
    Supreme Court justices are civil officers and impeachment is the remedy for a rogue one of those. – Jesse C. Slicer Dec 13 '19 at 19:42
54

A president can be impeached as many times as the House would like. The House could impeach the president multiple times in the same term if they wanted to. They could impeach on the same charges each time if they wanted to.

Impeachment isn't a criminal charge so things like double-jeopardy aren't a consideration. The only consideration is practical and political. If the House impeached on one set of grounds and the Senate declined to convict, it makes little sense to impeach again unless you have significantly different grounds, significantly more evidence, a significantly different Senate, or a significantly different popular sentiment that would make the old Senate reconsider their previous judgement. Politically, impeachment already carries a significant risk of blowback which would only increase for a second or third impeachment.

I don't believe any officials have ever been impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate, and then re-impeached by the House.

  • 12
    @Aetherfox it requires the Senate to consider the articles of impeachment, which implies the possibility of the impeached party's removal from office. Whether that possibility is so remote as to be meaningless will be a matter of opinion, but sending the articles to the Senate will certainly have some political implications. Whether those implications work in any given party's favor will vary, depending on many factors. – phoog Dec 12 '19 at 22:10
  • 10
    @Aetherfox - It's the difference between the House saying "That was wrong" and "We want this guy out of office". Even if the practical effect is the same either way (if the Senate won't remove), it's still the most severe step the Constitution allows for the House to take. – Bobson Dec 13 '19 at 0:07
  • 5
    I think @jamesqf’s example should read ‘will vote by the new party lines’ ;) – Jan Dec 13 '19 at 4:19
  • 1
    I think there were multiple attempts to impeach Pres. Andrew Johnson, though I'm not sure specifically how far each "attempt" got before it failed. – UuDdLrLrSs Dec 13 '19 at 13:45
  • 2
    @Jan: Possibly, but not necessarily. In the current situation, primary elections could replace the current crop of brainwashed-by-Trump Republicans, who then go on to win the seats and vote according to evidence. (Though I'm not holding my breath :-() – jamesqf Dec 13 '19 at 17:50
1

Impeachment probably isn't 'jeopardy' for Double Jeopardy purposes

The Fifth Amendment reads, in relevant part: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...

"Of life or limb" has been interpreted broadly to mean any criminal charge. Which impeachment is not. If you are convicted of a crime, you suffer from a wide variety of possible criminal penalties, all the way from execution down to community service or a fine.

But none of those are at issue if you are convicted in an impeachment. The only result of being impeached, and then convicted, is removal from office. Being fired, in essence. That's not a criminal penalty.

Practical concerns make it unlikely for impeachment to be repeated, but there's nothing stopping the House from deciding it didn't like the way the Senate tried the case, and impeach the president again on the exact same charge. It would be unwise, but not illegal.

  • 1
    It might not even be politically unwise...because it’s a political act and whether it is good or bad will be based upon whether it gets them re-elected. – jmoreno Dec 15 '19 at 1:55
  • I like the comparison to being fired. It's for the same reason that if your boss decides to be lenient (for whatever reason) and then gets replaced, that new boss could retroactively decide to fire you for that past action. Depending on the company that might be against the rules, but nothing practical says they can't or shouldn't do that. – user64742 Dec 15 '19 at 21:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .