Discussion about this post

User's avatar
яовэят ёскэят 😘's avatar

The concept of impeaching an official after he left office is not only something the founders contemplated, but something the first generation did once, aside from a couple subsequent occasions. But aside from the cases in the US, it should also be pointed out that in Britain an impeachment of a former official was happening *while the constitutional convention was adopting the language of impeachment* and this was a trial that received wide press coverage, since it was of the governor of India, Warren Hastings, and the issue (the extent to which a colonial governor should respect the interests of the governed) was one of acute interest in America. Since Hastings had left office a year and a half earlier, the stakes were not removal from office but deprivation of his perqs and eligibility for future office: he was acquitted, and kept his pension, but it was 20 years before he was given an honorary post as a sign that all was forgiven.

Expand full comment
Jeff Mc Donald's avatar

I guess one factor here is their desire to avoid a decision of what removing him during his first impeachment might have avoided.

Expand full comment
279 more comments...

No posts