0

Background

The same day President Joe Biden was inaugurated, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced articles of impeachment against him for his conduct as Vice President.

As Vice President, Joe Biden was the senior Obama Administration official overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hence, any illegal activity involving corruption conducted by Hunter Biden within or in relation to Ukraine would fall under the purview of the Office of Vice President Biden and the Obama State Department’s anti-corruption efforts. In fact, many State Department officials within the Obama Administration repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt company. Thus, any instances of corruption on behalf of Hunter Biden via his role as a board member of the Ukrainian-operated Burisma energy firm were intentionally not investigated or covered up.

Ignoring the fact that this is a conspiracy theory, these articles seemed to be introduced after the office holder left office, which seems to go a step further than holding an impeachment trial after the person in question has left office. In addition, the crucial difference that I am curious about is if the person under impeachment is currently holding a different office as opposed to no office, which was William Belknap's situation.

Question

If these articles received a majority vote and if the Senate voted 2/3rds to convict ex-Vice President Biden and then subsequently voted as a simple majority to prevent him from running for office again, that seems only to prevent him from running for re-election as opposed to removing him from his present office. Therefore, this leads to my question: What practical effect would these articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden have if successfully voted upon at each stage of the process?

19
  • 1
    @divibisan Because the articles mention conduct when he held the Office of Vice President as opposed to President.
    – isakbob
    Jan 26 at 16:35
  • 2
    @K Dog Because this is the only real world instance of a legislator proposing an article mentioning conduct in a previous office specifically as opposed to a current office. The article's failure or success at this point are hypothetical (though failure is the more realistic hypothetical).
    – isakbob
    Jan 26 at 16:36
  • 4
    It's unclear if articles of impeachment can be introduced against an individual who no longer holds that office. Not sure if a definite answer can be provided here since it'll probably end up in SCOTUS.
    – Panda
    Jan 26 at 16:38
  • 2
    Why do you think "crimes" committed by a Vice President could only be used to impeach them as a Vice President? Impeachment is a political process, and there's no rule that says you can't impeach a President for things done as a Vice President, aside from the will of the House and Senate
    – divibisan
    Jan 26 at 16:47
  • 2
    The linked answers DO NOT answer this question. While I'm not a lawyer, the article of the Constitution dealing with impeachment does not say that those high crimes & misdemeanors need to have been committed while in office. So for example, if Trump had, during his time in office, been convicted in state courts of some of the many potential charges against him for his acts prior to running for President, those could have been used as grounds for impeachment.
    – jamesqf
    Jan 26 at 17:46
7

The proposed articles introduced by Greene (even though most likely they won't pass the House) actually say (in the end):

Wherefore President Biden, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Biden thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

In the press release (you've linked to), this is was just summarized as:

President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency.

Thus it is no different than any other impeachment. Congress can impeach for almost anything it wants. There's nothing apriori disqualifying acts done under any other office or while holding no office whatsoever because Biden is holding an office presently and the impeachment attempt by Greene seeks to remove him from this (presently held) office.

If Biden were convicted under those articles of Greene, he'd be removed as POTUS. The last ask in that para from Greene, for Biden to be disqualified from holding any office (in the future) is also not unprecedented, as it was applied to judge Archbald in 1913.

2
  • 1
    Your quote seems to be taken from her press release, not from the article of impeachment. Nevertheless, the article's even more explicit: "Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."
    – Panda
    Jan 27 at 2:32
  • @Panda: thanks, I couldn't actually find the latter (it's not linked in an of the news stories or on Wikipedia). I assumed it was the same text.
    – Fizz
    Jan 27 at 2:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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