Impeachment: A Handbook, New Edition Kindle Edition

"...I confess to a very strong sense of the dreadfulness of the step of removal, of the deep wounding such a step must inflict on the country, and thus approach it as one would approach high-risk major surgery, to be resorted to only when the rightness of diagnosis and treatment is sure" (Charles L. Black, Jr., "Impeachment: A Handbook, New Edition").Like the delicate scent of flowers in springtime, talk of impeachment is in the air. Whether such talk is mindful or mental, partisan or patriotic, there's no question that the question of the "Big I" hasn't consumed this much bandwidth since the dial-up days of 1998.Charles L. Black, Jr. of Yale Law School published his brief handbook on presidential impeachment in 1974, near the height of the Nixon debacle. He intended, like a modern-day legal Prometheus, to capture the incandescent legalese of impeachment practice and theory, and bring it down to the level of common humanity. He succeeded.The first 61 pages of Black's reissued handbook is his original work, a masterful parsing of the issues in terms the thoughtful layman can understand. What does "high Crimes and misdemeanors" really mean? Should the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review a Senate vote for conviction under articles of impeachment? Does a president need to commit an explicitly criminal action to be liable for impeachment, or can impeachment proceed for something that isn't in the criminal code? If so, what actions are severe enough to trigger impeachment proceedings, and what aren't?I found most helpful Black's discussion of why the Constitutional Framers chose not to include "maladministration" as a grounds for presidential impeachment, a charge which many original state constitutions did include as an impeachable offense for state-level officials. The Framers thus avoided the British system of parliamentary governance, in which the executive serves at the pleasure of the legislative. Impeachment is not a no-confidence vote. It is not a means to remove an unpopular president, or a president whose policies are disliked by any given Congress. Rather, to suffer impeachment, a president must engage in treason (very narrowly defined), bribery, or "high Crimes and misdemeanors" — whatever that means.The remainder of the book, written by Philip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School, provides important additional discussions arising from the unsuccessful impeachment of President Bill Clinton, as well as from impeachment investigations or talk which took place under the terms of Reagan, George W. Bush, and Obama. Along with rebuttals of common fallacies in thinking about impeachment, he also includes a brief discussion of what the 25th Amendment was actually meant to do (spoiler: it wasn't forged to support a palace coup).While not to the level of Black's treatise (in my opinion, anyway), Bobbitt's discussion of impeachment theory and practice that has blossomed from recent history is quite helpful. If his addition fall shy of Black's masterpiece, it is perhaps because he writes while caught in the gears of the endless controversy machine that is the Trump presidency. His deep misgivings about the Trump administration are obvious, though he strives mightily (and I would say with overall success) to reach conclusions that transcend the current moment.I opened this book already in agreement with Black, that impeachment should be the unthinkable final weapon in a war for democracy, not a crowbar to pry out an unlovable president. Removal of a chief executive by Congress directly overturns the electoral will of the people, and must be approached with sacred horror in a system that holds sacrosanct that will. And yet, like any other weapon, we must be ready to wield it, if necessary, to defend the hard-won Constitutional order gifted to us by the Framers.Black and Bobbitt provide an invaluable and thoughtful aid toward determining when we must leave that sword of impeachment firmly in its sheath — and when, with regret but with determination, we must draw it out and let it do what it was meant to do.

Very lucid and a pleasure to read, though I suppose the conclusions could be argued back and forth. Has anything changed in the last few years that would invalidate the thinking here? I'd suppose not. A very fine book ... though it's a tricky subject and some of the examples of what's impeachable could flop the other way perhaps!

Charles L. Black, Jr. (1915-2001) was one the preeminent constitutional law scholars of the secondhalf of the 20th century. In 1974, as the possibility of impeachment was becoming more and more likely, Black penned this short book. (Black's preface is dated 21 May 1974; Nixon resigned in the face of an impending impeachment in August of that year.) Black mentions Nixon early in the book, pointing out that he'd never been a fan of Nixon, but Black also noted that he didn't think that Nixon was legally obligated to produce the tapes. (The Supreme Court differed.) This brief mention at the beginning of the book is about all that's topical; thus, the remainder of the book focuses on the law and issues surrounding a presidential impeachment. And this is one reason why this book remains so valuable today.I'll quote liberally from Black because his writing is so pithy and graceful, not to mention authoritative. Black makes this important point near the beginning of his work:No matter, then, can be of higher political importance than our considering whether in any given instance, this act of choice [presidential election] is to be undone and the chosen president dismissed from office in disgrace. Everyone must shrink at this most drastic measure.Impeachment: A Handbook (1974; 1998 with forward by Akil Reed Amar), 1Thus, Black makes clear his assessment of the profundity of the issues at hand. But while the issues are profound, they can be considered by careful analysis. In his Forward, Akil Reed Amar (another Yale constitutional scholar) describes Black's framework and process: "The right question to ask, says Black, is not 'what finite set of offenses James Madison had in his head when he agreed to the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? but rather 'what misdeeds do we today--here and now--deem so gross and malignant as to warrant undoing a national election?'" (Id. X) Thus does Black dispatch the naive "originalism" propounded by some in the arena of constitutional law today. On the topic of interpreting the Constitution, Black states:An understanding of the questions is more important than a fixed conviction concerning the answers." Id. 3.Black builds on this insight by stating:"[I]t is the cardinal principle at least of American constitutional interpretation that the Constitution is to be interpreted so as to be workable and reasonable. This principle does not collide with respect for the "intention of the Framers" because their transcendent intent was to build just such a Constitution." Id. 4.With these principles in mind, Black turns more directly to the issues and procedures of impeachment. For instance, while the courts have no direct role in impeachment (there is no judicial review of the decisions of the House and Senate), the matter is one that calls for the practice of sound legal procedures and analysis. Black argues that members of the House, who impeach the president (the equivalent of the criminal indictment), should act as if they were grand jurors in reviewing the issues and evidence. By implication, members of the Senate should act as trial jurors. But there are limits to the analogy of a legal proceeding. For instance, no standards of proof or rules of evidence apply. These issues remain within the sound discretion of the members of Congress (heaven help us!). In voting on each Article (element) of the House charges, each senator mustask two questions together: "Did the president do what in this Article he is charged with having done?" "If he did, did that action constitute an impeachable offense within the meaning of the constitutional phrase?" Id. 13.But the real key to understanding the impeachment provision surrounds the phrase "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The first two elements are (relatively) clear, but that last is a bit of a challenge. Black, before wading deep into the issues of understanding the third element, emphasizes that "maladministration" is not an element and that the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" "out to be conceived as offenses having about them some flavor of criminality." Id. 29. Note--not that an element must constitute some kind of crime, only that it has "the flavor" of "criminality." Black goes on to argue that there are some acts that while not crimes per se, they do nevertheless constitute grounds for impeachment. And some acts that are clearly crimes do not provide sufficient grounds. For instance, religious tests for office or blanket pardons while not crimes per se, would, in Black's opinion, constitute grounds. (My, how his examples ring topical!) And sexual improprieties or other minor crimes or crimes unrelated to the exercise of the office, would not be grounds. (Again, how prescient!). Black discusses scenarios that elucidate his principles and provide easily appreciate examples. He has his perspective, but true to his principles of constitutional interpretation, he does not lay down dogmatic conclusions but well-constructed arguments. The book is worth the time just to review his consideration of the various scenarios, which display a subtle and learned mind at work.I can't think of a better primer about the issue of impeachment, and certainly not one so worthwhile and so short. Two books published this year, one by Cass Sunstein (I've read) and one by Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz ( I'm reading) are excellent and point to Black as a valued predecessor, but neither is as short or pithy nor as removed from current events (distance themselves as they try). So, this is the place to start and even where to end if you're short of time.N.B. As I noted in the caption to the cover image, a new edition, updated by constitutional scholar Phillip Bobbit, is due out on 18 September, and will certainly become the preferred edition, since it can incorporate the effects of the Clinton impeachment.

Having lived through Watergate, Clinton, and now Trump, this was a wonderful, very accessible review of the history and judicial theory behind a very serious and and necessary tool for preserving democracy. Some of the warnings of the original and revised editions authors have definitely manifested themselves recently.

I you would like a thorough, authoritative, dispassionate and clear explanation of legal and constitutional issues surrounding impeachment, this is the book for you. It's 160 pages of very clear and understandable text written with the lay person in mind.With "Impeachment", Black and Phillips have performed a valuable public service. Rarely have I read so little and learned so much. A must read - in these days and times - for every informed citizen!

I'm unable to locate page numbers to verify citations; (eg pp. 111-112, 136 in Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook) or make references that are universal to all types of distribution media.I'll take the hardcopy, thanks.

As an American unfamiliar with the process our government has undertaken in the last 6 months, this small and information dense book is essential. The author takes exceptionally complex topics from American civics and makes it understandable to non-politicians/attorneys.Excellent read.

I am giving this book 3 stars, but not because of any demerits. It is a good book for someone looking to have a first contact with presidential impeachments in the US, but it might be too superficial or incomplete, given how much has been produced and discussed about the theme since this book was first published (1974). Phillip Bobbit does a good work of updating the book in the final 70 pages of the book, but in all honesty, I think there are better options out there, specially if you are concerned with the theory of impeachments itself. I personally think Cass Sunstein's book (2017) on impeachment offers a more complete package overall, equally with the ease of access that once distinguished Charles Black Jr.'s work.