Presidential Impeachment Research Articles

Impeachment and presidential politics in new democracies

Research on presidentialism has long assumed that presidential impeachment is a rare event, made difficult by design in order to enhance government stability. However, the experience of Third Wave democracies suggests that more presidents have been targets of impeachment attempts than the literature might lead us to expect. In this article I seek to identify the factors that make directly elected presidents more or less vulnerable to impeachment attempts in Third Wave presidential democracies from 1974 to 2003. I find several factors that mobilize deputies against the president: presidential involvement in political scandal, strong presidential powers, and a hostile civil society. Presidents are more likely to fend off such efforts when their party commands a higher share of seats. I also find that popular protest against a president helps to prompt a congressional impeachment drive. Frequent efforts to resolve presidential crises via such legal procedures may explain in part why extra-constitutional means of conflict resolution have become a less attractive option in new democracies.

MEKANISME IMPEACHMENT MENURUT HUKUM TATA NEGARA DAN FIQH SIYASAH

Presidential impeachment in government institutions are prepared to remind the President, in which tenure may be dismissed at any time in the middle of the road when actually violated the provisions of the Constitution 1945 outlined. Violations committed by the President and / or Vice President, as in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution after amandmen, this requires a clear legal processes and institutions involved in the impeachment should dare to lay off, if there is strong evidence. Impeachment of the President according to constitutional law and jurisprudence Siyasah essentially the same explanations are only slightly different, Impeachment is a call or prosecution to demand accountability in the form of assembly, and the assembly is known as the Islamic syura (consultation). While the difference is in the Fiqh Siyasah not regulated in detail how the mechanism of impeachment of the President, while the constitutional law set out in the Constitution 1945 and the Law on the Constitutional Court No.. 24 of 2003. In Islam known more extreme in impeach the President. If the President has violated the social contract or betraying the country, the people can exercise his power through violence, war and even to murder though. While in constitutional law, if the president is no longer considered eligible as President, then drop by the President from office or deliberations through the legal process set out in the Constitution 1945

The Veto Point Politics of the Presidential Impeachment in South Korea: An Analysis of the Parliamentary Impeachment against President Rho Moo-hyun

The Veto Point Politics of the Presidential Impeachment in South Korea: An Analysis of the Parliamentary Impeachment against President Rho Moo-hyun

A republic: if we can keep it

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL system has thrown off some truly anomalous results in the past decade. We have gone from the historic 1994 election (a 50-seat swing in the House of Representatives bringing to power a Republican leadership promising Revolution), to an historic presidential impeachment and acquittal, to an historic 2000 election in which voters divided as evenly as imaginable in their preference for Democrats or Republicans. We are practically awash in the historic these days. Commentary in the weeks after the 2000 presidential election told us to watch events closely, since we would never see their like again in our lifetime. This may be true, but it may also miss the larger point. For those who found themselves disturbed one way or another by the outcome and aftermath of the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore -- or as the Clinton impeachment drama unfolded, or as the Republican Congress tried to enact its Revolution -- the uniqueness of each event and the unlikelihood of a recurrence may be a false consolation. We may not run into these particular oddities again, but it may be that we are in the midst of something bigger -- a pattern of oddity. One can certainly try to explain away these and lesser instances of strange politics. For example: The fact that a former professional wrestler was elected governor of Minnesota -- and that one Sunday in 1999, the governor decided to make a triumphant return to the ring as referee in the World Wrestling Federation Summerslam -- well, it is certainly strange. But it is also perhaps colorful, in the great American tradition of eccentricity, and not especially noteworthy except in the context of that tradition. Anyway, Jesse Ventura won office with a narrow plurality in a three-way election. How significant is this? Or, for another example, the fact that voters in Missouri cast their ballots in the state's 2000 Senate race for a man who died three weeks earlier -- because the governor promised to appoint the man's widow to the seat -- is macabre, and perhaps uniquely so. But the widow's pension has a long pedigree in American politics, even if it is not exactly a noble one, and it hardly seems fair to single out this instance as especially noteworthy. Americans are sympathetic to the bereaved, after all. The late Mel Carnahan's election may have been no more than a particularly florid expression of that. And if it's a bit odd that the son of the forty-first president sought to become the forty-third in a race that ultimately hinged on the vote count in the state in which the candidate's brother served as governor -- even as the wife of the president of the United States was unprecedentedly winning election as a United States senator -- well, family has always been important in politics, no? But if instead of trying to explain away these possibly isolated instances of oddity, we take the sum of them -- then add to the mix a failed revolution, an impeachment and acquittal, and the closest and most litigated presidential election ever -- we could probably be forgiven for reaching the conclusion that this has been a distinctly volatile period in American politics. And we might want to ask if the country has run into anything like this before, and if so, whether any such previous periods have enough in common with our own to point to something that might help account for these strange days. ONE NEEDN'T SCRATCH at this volatility too deeply before some of its paradoxical qualities become apparent. For example, the American electorate split evenly in the 2000 election -- not only in the presidential vote, but also in that voters elected a House and Senate nearly equally split between the parties. But are voters themselves really so bitterly divided? Certainly, elite partisan and ideological opinion is. Those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Republican Party are at loggerheads with those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Democratic Party. …

Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia Pasca Amandemen UUD 1945

Abstract: The article discuss the changes of indonesian political system in indonesia after the amendment of Indonesian Constitution of 1945 with the focus of the amendments of legislative, eecutive and judicative bodies. Legislative amendments is located in the emergence of a new body called DPD (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah of Regional Representative Assembly) as a part of MPR (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or People’s Consulatation Assembly) alongside DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or House of Representative). Such amendment is basically a modifictaion of bicameral system as that of the United States’ political system. Executive body amendments lies on direct election of president, limitation of presidential tenure up to two tenures of five years, and likeliness of presidential impeachment in case of breaking law and constitution. Amendment on judicative body is obviously apparent in the creation of Constitutional Court alongside the Supreme Court and Judicial comission which is in charge of safeguarding the judgeship profession.Kata Kunci: Amandemen, UUD, dan System Ketatanegaraan

Instytucja przysięgi prezydenta w polskim porządku prawnym

The President’s oath of office is a solemn declaration taken in the presence of the National Assembly by which a new head of state swears to be faithful to the provisions of the Constitution; to steadfastly safeguard the dignity of the Nation, the independence and security of the State, and also that the good of the Homeland and the prosperity of its citizens shall forever remain his supreme obligation. The oath of office has been taken by all Presidents of the Republic of Poland, from Gabriel Narutowicz in 1922 to Bronisław Komorowski in 2010. Over the span of 90 years the words and the form of the oath of office were subject to changes. In the interwar period, the President’s oath of office was religious in nature and was articulated in following words „I swear to Almighty God, One in the Holy Trinity”. After World War II, i.e. between 1947 and 1952, the President’s oath of office partially lost its sacral dimension, although it was still ended with obligatory Invocatio Dei. Nowadays, namely from 1992, secular oath of office may also be optionally taken with the additional sentence „So help me, God”. President’s oath of office is an example of a specific type of legal institution that originated from interaction between different normative systems. This institution combines law with morality, religion and custom. Legal relevancy of the President’s oath of office reveals itself in the fact that swearing-in is a condition which President has to fulfill to take over the office. Whereas infringement of the oath of office can be one of the grounds, rather than the only ground, for Presidential impeachment before The Tribunal of State. Swearing-in is a crucial element of Presidential inauguration. Official schedule of the first day of the Presidential term also contains taking control of the Armed Forces and receiving insignia of the two highest polish orders (The Order of the White Eagle and The Order of Polonia Restituta). The President also participates in the Eucharist held in the Archcathedral in Warsaw, which is rather a private ceremony. Characteristic of the given institution requires not only the analysis of the law but also its practice. Analysis of statues and other normative acts should be accompanied by empirical case study.

Presidential Impeachment and Public Opinion: Lessons from History and a Call for Reform

President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1999, to be tried by the Senate to consider removal from office. Two days later, polls revealed that seventy-three percent of Americans approved of Clinton’s performance as president, an increase from still positive approval ratings weeks prior to the impeachment, and Clinton’s highest approval rating of his presidency. This paper examines how these convoluted results arose from the history of presidential impeachment, analyzes the dangers of such unpopular impeachments, and proposes a solution to prevent these dangers from undermining the legitimacy of the impeachment process.

CHECKS AFTER THE FACT - Anibal Pérez-Liñan: Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xvi, 241. $80.00.)

CHECKS AFTER THE FACT - Anibal Pérez-Liñan: Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xvi, 241. $80.00.) - Volume 71 Issue 1

Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America by Aníbal Pérez-Liñán

Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America <i>by Aníbal Pérez-Liñán</i>

Democratic Consolidation beyond Political Crisis: An Experience of Korea

In late 20th century, the East Asian region joined the world-wide democratic trend of ‘the third wave.’ Once formidable authoritarian regimes were dismantled and gave way to democratization. The trend began in the Philippines in 1986 and it was followed by South Korea and Taiwan both in 1987. Thailand joined the club in 1992 and Indonesia did the same a couple of years before the new millennium. In those countries, new democratic constitutions were written. With the new constitutions, freedom of political participation was bestowed upon ordinary citizens, civil organizations, political parties, and so on. Free and fair elections have been regularly held since then and the elections, reflecting the hopes of ordinary citizens, installed new civilian political leadership. Not all democratic transitions and consolidations in those countries, however, were without crisis. Despite free and competitive elections and political participation guaranteed by constitutions and by the laws related to elections and political parties, the marches towards further democracy in those countries often look unstable and confusing. The instability was partly due to a sudden explosion of political demands, which had been suppressed for a long time under authoritarian rule. The plethora of political demands could not be smoothly aggregated and articulated in the new born democratic political systems. If the instability of a newly democratized political system continues, then it may endanger the sustainability of a new democracy causing reversal of democracy or return to authoritarianism. Korea, after democratization, has been plagued by various political crises too. The economic crisis in 1997 was a grave test for Korean democracy. With the economic crisis, Korea, for the first time, experienced a peaceful change of political power. Korea’s march towards democracy was thereafter relatively smooth despite minor political scandals. In spring 2004, Korea suddenly plunged into a political crisis when President Roh Moo-Hyun faced impeachment proceedings. This crisis brought about a serious division not only among politicians, but also among ordinary citizens. Also, hot debates on the constitution, on political leadership and civil society were incurred. The presidential impeachment was the first in Korea’s history. It, however, became an important turning point of democratic progress when political leaders and civil society successfully managed and overcame the crisis. This study will first analyze democratic transition and consolidation and secondly analyze the causes of and responses to the political crisis caused by the impeachment of the president through examining the following questions. The main questions of this study are as follows: How did the democratic transition and consolidation in Korea occur? What was the nature of political crisis in Korea after democratization? What was the main reason of the crisis? What sort of problems did the political leadership and civil society have? How did Korea respond to the crisis and overcome the crisis of presidential impeachment? What implications does this process from the beginning to the end of the crisis have for Korean democracy after democratization? Particularly, this study focuses on the political leadership and the political behavior of civil society in the process of democratic transition and consolidation. With these

PEMAKZULAN (IMPEACHMENT) PRESIDEN DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM TATA NEGARA

AbstrakThis article provides explanation concerning the recent issue in Indonesiapresidential institution that always becomes interesting research anddebates. Focus of the author here is embarked on the presidentialimpeachment that has effective since post reformation in early secondmillennia. It has become most of debates and regards under the newly thirdamendment stipulation of the Constitution (UUD R1 1945). The issuesregarding presidential impeachment have more clarification about itreasons, phase, and certain procedure to impeach the president and/or thevice president during their periods. The fundamental raison d'etre ofpresidential impeachment is by their legitimating vanished which resulted bytheir act and conduct have violated laws either criminal and constitutionallaw violation including their oaths.

Bloodless Coups

Aníbal Pérez-Liñán's Presidential Impeachment and the New Political Instability in Latin America examines the most important trend in Latin American presidentialism over the past 25 years. As any careful observer will have noted, the region's militaries have been unable, or unwilling, to seize control of the state and govern since the Cold War's demise. The military coups that long punctuated the governing cycles of many countries in Latin America have virtually disappeared. In their wake, however, we do not necessarily find a succession of stable governments, ceding power, one to the next, according to schedules and processes set down by constitutions. Instead, crises of confidence in presidents and in their governments, among citizens or other institutional actors, have frequently been resolved by the president's premature removal from office by the legislature, or at least with its assent. These government crises have not toppled the institution of civilian government per se, yet their characteristic improvization may erode the mutually reinforcing expectations about the rule of law on which stable democracy depends.

Presidential impeachment and the new political instability in Latin America

Presidential impeachment and the new political instability in Latin America

The Philippines: In the Eye of the Political Storm

In 2006 the Philippines passed through another year of severe political weather, with forms of instability accompanying attempts, whether by constitutional or unconstitutional means, to remove the embattled President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from office. Meanwhile multiple insurgencies raged within the country. The President's legitimacy has been in question since she secured a six-year term in a controversial presidential election in May 2004. Her popularity remained at record lows since the emergence in early 2005 of some evidence of alleged intent to cheat in order to defeat her opponent, actor Fernando Poe Jr. The country's political stage hosted an appearance of almost all the political strategies characteristic of the weak post-1986 Philippine state: attempts at presidential impeachment and military coup, declaration of state of emergency, political violence, failed constitutional reform, and continuation of the communist and Muslim insurgencies. In many ways, Philippine politics appears to have become frozen in its perpetual state of varying levels of crisis. Political instability is becoming expected and almost institutionalized. The country's division between the supporters of constitutional reform and those who wish to preserve the existing system that mirrors the government of its former American colonial power, indicate an increasing lack of legitimacy of the political system itself. At the same time, the political drama has unfolded against the background of solid gains in the country's economic performance and clear indications that the looming fiscal crisis, which appeared in 2004, has definitely been warded off. In a situation long typical of the archipelago, the satisfying economic figures are seen by many observers as being inconsistent with the failure of the government to alleviate the problems of poverty and social justice. In other words, economic growth has very little trickle-down effect. The strong economic performance was

Justice Curtis in the Civil War Era: At the Crossroads of American Constitutionalism

During a career as both a lawyer and a Supreme Court justice, Benjamin R. Curtis addressed practically every major constitutional question of the mid-nineteenth century, making judgments that still resonate in American law. Aside from a family memoir written by his brother over one hundred years ago, however, no book-length treatment of Curtis exists. Now Stuart Streichler has filled this gap in judicial biography, using Curtis's life and work as a window on the most serious constitutional crisis in American history, the Civil War. Curtis was the lead attorney for President Andrew Johnson in the Senate's impeachment trial, where he delivered the pivotal argument, and his was an influential voice in the pervasive constitutional struggle between states and the federal government. He is best remembered, however, for dissenting in the Dred Scott case, in which he disputed Chief Justice Taney's proslavery ruling that no black person could ever become a citizen of the United States. In the wake of the decision, Curtis resigned from the court, the only justice in the Supreme Court's history to do so on grounds of principle. Yet he also clashed with Boston's abolitionists over enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, and he opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. In a period when the Constitution was radically transformed from a charter that protected slavery to one that granted all persons equal rights of citizenship, Justice Curtis maintained his faith in the Constitution as an adaptable instrument of self-government and tried to mark out a path for gradual change. Streichler assesses Curtis's common-law methods in the context of his divisive times and shows how the judge's views continue to shed light on issues that have become once again relevant, such as the presidential impeachment process and, after 9/11, the use of military tribunals to try civilians.

Checking executive power: presidential impeachment in comparative perspective

Comparative Presidential Impeachment: Introduction by Jody Baumgartner The Political Nature of Presidential Impeachment in the United States by William B. Perkins Weak Institutions and Strong Movements: The Case of President Estrada's Impeachment in the Philippines by Yuko Kasuya Presidential Impeachment and the Politics of Survival: The Case of Columbia by Anibal S. Perez-Linan and Victor J. Hinojosa Madagascar: Impeachment as Parlimentary Coup D'etat by Philip M. Allen Impeachment, Russian Style (1998-99) by Jody Baumgartner Impeachment as a Punishment for Corruption? The Cases of Brazil and Venezuela by Naoka Kada Comparative Presidential Impeachment: Conclusions by Naoko Kada Endnotes Recommended Readings

Checking Executive Power: Presidential Impeachment in Comparative Perspective

Checking Executive Power: Presidential Impeachment in Comparative Perspective

Did Firms Profit from Soft Money?

193 AT ITS HEART, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) seeks to limit the private benefits that firms receive from campaign contributions. A series of rulings by the Federal Election Commission created the opportunity for organizations and individuals to give funds to party accounts outside the system of direct contribution limits—so-called soft money. Although little used before 1992, soft money ballooned during the 1990s. In the 2000 election, the two major parties raised approximately $500 million in soft money, most of which came from corporations in donations in excess of $100,000, at least ten times larger than the hard contribution limits set in the Federal Elections Campaign Act.1 Companies were widely alleged to have profited directly and substantially from their soft money donations. In the years leading up to the passage of BCRA, public interest groups and the press provided numerous examples of firms that benefited from public policies and were also large soft money donors—tobacco, pharmaceutical, and oil companies were especially featured in these reports. The most telling evidence, cited extensively by the majority opinion in McConnell v. FEC, emerged in hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce in 1998. Corporate executives and legislators testified that soft money donations were often given when valuable government contracts where on the line. In other cases, donors feared that if they did not contribute, then their companies would lose competitive advantages through regulations. These were clearly stories of excess. Parties and their candidates received donations well in excess of what they could raise under the hard money limits, and corporations, which gave most of the soft party money, allegedly received excessively large benefits at public expense in return for their contributions. Were these cases typical, or exceptional? If exceptional, then the government might best deal with the problems of corrupt practices through aggressive enforcement of anti-bribery laws. If typical, then the government might attempt to eliminate these problems with blanket restrictions on contributions—as they in fact did. At issue is the extent to which donors, especially large corporate donors, benefited from soft money. Economists and political scientists have long been puzzled about the influence of campaign contributions on public policy. An extensive literature examines the association between hard money contributions and public policy decision-making, especially roll call voting in the U.S. Congress. The large majority of studies find no significant effects of hard money contributions on public policy, and, in those that do find some association, the magnitude of the effects is typically very small.2

Presidential Impeachment and Institutional Dynamics in the Iran-Contra Affair and the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal

This paper analyzes institutional dynamics affecting Congress's impeachment decisions regarding the Iran-Contra Affair and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. While other scholars have explained the Clinton impeachment by pointing to differences in the nature of the scandals–a decoupling of public opinion from legislative action, increasing partisanship, and a new media regime–these explanations overlook the nature of impeachment as an institutional confrontation, governed by institutional choices and dynamics. Taking an institutional approach, we argue that congressional decisions were strongly affected by the institutional arrangements adopted by Congress to handle the scandals' investigations. In brief, the earlier strategic approaches of party leaders and the congressional investigatory approach restrained inclinations to impeach President Reagan, while later ones promoted President Clinton's impeachment. More broadly, this analysis demonstrates the important interaction between institutional choices and party leaders' powers and strategies in affecting congressional action.

The Role of Investigative Committees in the Presidential Impeachment Processes in Brazil and Colombia

One of the most important political debates today regards how to design institutions to ensure the accountability of public officials. The impeachment process is one mechanism of accountability check available to legislatures. It is, however, susceptible to misuse. What determines how the impeachment process functions? In this paper, I argue that control of information by congressional investigation committees is a crucial factor in deciding the outcome of the impeachment process. I show how the difference in information control by the investigative committees in Brazil and Colombia contributed to the removal of a president in one country and a president's acquittal in the other.