Impeachment, by its nature, is a political process. It is not a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, though senators play the role of the jury, they are far from ordinary jurors.
This was confirmed during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, when Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa queried it on the floor of the Senate.
“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.”
Harkin went on to make his case that “the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury,” with reference to the Federalist, the Senate’s rules, and the Constitution itself, which provides in Article III that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”
Chief Justice Rehnquist upheld Harkin’s point. “The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”
Rehnquist’s rhetoric underscores the critical—and expansively powerful—role that the Senate plays in impeachment. Senators are not merely neutral jurors. They act as the court, setting the rules for the trial, deciding what witnesses will be called, and disposing of motions. While the chief justice “rules,” in reality, he merely facilitates. Any of his rulings can be overturned by the Senate with 51 votes.
Put simply, the senators themselves—not the chief justice—have the singular power to decide every issue. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged this, emphasizing the Framers’ intent to “give the Senate exclusive interpretive authority” over its role in the trial.
>
Impeachment, by its nature, is a political process. It is not a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, though senators play the role of the jury, they are far from ordinary jurors.
>
This was confirmed during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, when Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa queried it on the floor of the Senate.
>
“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.”
>
Harkin went on to make his case that “the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury,” with reference to the Federalist, the Senate’s rules, and the Constitution itself, which provides in Article III that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”
>
Chief Justice Rehnquist upheld Harkin’s point. “The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”
>
Rehnquist’s rhetoric underscores the critical—and expansively powerful—role that the Senate plays in impeachment. Senators are not merely neutral jurors. They act as the court, setting the rules for the trial, deciding what witnesses will be called, and disposing of motions. While the chief justice “rules,” in reality, he merely facilitates. Any of his rulings can be overturned by the Senate with 51 votes.
>
Put simply, the senators themselves—not the chief justice—have the singular power to decide every issue. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged this, emphasizing the Framers’ intent to “give the Senate exclusive interpretive authority” over its role in the trial.
(post is archived)