[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 104th Congress]
[104th Congress]
[House Document 103-342]
[Jeffersons Manual of ParliamentaryPractice]
[Pages 299-311]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 

                        SEC. LIII.--IMPEACHMENT.


         *            *            *            *            *        



Sec. 601. Jurisdiction of Lords and Commons as 
to impeachments.

  These are the  provisions of the Constitution of the United States 
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the 
principles and practices of England on the same subject:



[[Page 300]]
The Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on 
the information of the King or a private person, because the accused is 
entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the 
House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever 
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do 
not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then 
instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is 
instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the 
delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be 
charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites 
Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords 
remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2 
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst., 
25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
  Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in 
the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 
63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the 
Commons. Ib., 84. 


[[Page 301]]
order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' 
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.



Sec. 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation 
in impeachment.

  Accusation. The  Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes 
suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course 
is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the 
supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by 
oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the 
Commons. The person signifies that the articles will be exhibited, and 
desires that the delinquent may be sequestered from his seat, or be 
committed, or that the peers will take 




Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the 
House.

  In the  House of Representatives there are various methods of setting 
an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the 
responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which 
is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 
2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the 
hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-
42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 
2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a 
State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 
2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating 
committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444). In the 93d Congress, the Vice 
President sought to initiate an investigation by the House of charges 
against him of possibly impeachable offenses; the Speaker and the House 
took no action on the request since the matter was pending in the courts 
and the offenses did not relate to activities during the Vice 
President's term of office (Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368); see III, 2510, 
wherein the Committee on the Judiciary (to which the matter had been 
referred by privileged resolution) reported that a civil officer (the 
Vice President) could not be impeached for acts or omissions committed 
prior to his term of office; but see III, 1736, however, the Vice 
President's request that the House investigate charges against his prior 
offical conduct as Secretary of War was referred, on motion, to a select 
committee.



[[Page 302]]
resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment 
may be a possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 
463). But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes 
impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege 
(III, 2051, 2052, 2401, 2402). A committee to which has been referred 
privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer 
may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to consideration of the 
impeachment question, including conferral of subpoena authority and 
funding of the investigation from the contingent fund (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 
1974, p. 2349). A resolution authorizing depositions by committee 
counsel in an impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX and the 
Constitution as incidental to impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, 
p. 27781).


Sec. 604. A proposition to impeach a question of 
privilege.

  A direct  proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in 
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the 
rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048; VI, 468, 469; 
July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; 
see Procedure, ch. 14, sec. 1-5). It may not even be superseded by an 
election case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It 
does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has 
been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 
2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). So, 
also, propositions relating to an impeachment already made are 
privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 
1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing for selection of managers 
of an impeachment (VI, 517), proposing abatement of impeachment 
proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers for impeachment proceedings 
continued in the Senate from the previous Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 
84), empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel 
and providing money for their payment (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84), and 
replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a 




Sec. 605. Investigation of impeachment 
charges.

  The impeachment  having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400; 
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having 
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516; 2520, VI, 552), or even 
appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times 
ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from 
ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a 
committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513). Under the 
later practice, resolutions introduced through the hopper under clause 4 
of rule XXII that directly call for the impeachment of a federal civil 
officer have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, while 
resolutions calling for an investigation by that committee or by a 
select committee with a view toward impeachment have been referred to 
the Committee on Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873).



[[Page 303]]
chairman and members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, 
p. 29361).


Sec. 606. Procedure of committee in 
investigating.

  The House has  always examined the charges by its own committee before 
it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee has 
sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes a 
standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee 
has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 
2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in 
favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 
2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219). The 
Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to 
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of 
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the 
decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House, 
the chairman of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the 
committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by 
the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The 
House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the 
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of 
the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing 
its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the 





Sec. 607. Impeachment carried to the 
Senate.

  Its committee  on investigation having reported, the House may vote the 
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, p. 3067-91), 
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may 
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a 
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), or five 
Members (III, 2445) or nine (July 22, 1986, p. 17306). These Members in 
one notable case represented the majority party alone, but ordinarily 
include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505). 
The chairman of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral 
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and requests that the Senate take 
order as to appearance; but in only one case has the parliamentary law 
as to sequestration and committal been followed (III, 2118, 2296), later 
inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate had no power to take 
into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324, 2367). Having delivered 
the impeachment, the committee returns to the House and reports verbally 
(III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). In the later practice the House considers 
together the resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; 
Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts 
resolutions electing managers to present the articles before the Senate, 
notifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and election of 
managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct the 
trial in the Senate (VI, 500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; 
July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206).





Sec. 608. The writ of summons for appearance 
of respondent.

  Process. If the  party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, 
giving him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. 
If any error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short 
day. If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. 
Seld. Jud. 98, 99.




[[Page 304]]

  The managers for the House of Representatives attend in the Senate 
after the articles have been exhibited and demand that process issue for 
the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478), after which they return 
and report verbally to the House (III, 2423, 2451; VI, 501). The Senate 
thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the day of return (III, 2423, 
2451); and in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or 
attorney the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 
2393). But the respondent's goods were not attached.




Sec. 609. Exhibition and form of 
articles.

  Articles. The accusation  (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an 
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing 
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325; 
2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.


  Formerly, the House exhibited its articles after the impeachment had 
been carried to the bar of the Senate; in the later practice, the 
resolution and articles of impeachment have been considered together and 
exhibited simultaneously in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; 
Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126). The managers, who 
are elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 
517; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 
2388, 2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the 
House (III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449, 
2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448) 
and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter 
body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p. 
19335). Having exhibited the articles the managers return and report 
verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476). The articles in the Belknap 
impeachment were held sufficient, although attacked for not describing 
the respondent as one subject to impeachment (III, 2123). In the 
proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the articles of 
impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and accumulated separate 
offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and attested by the 
Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the practice of the 
House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).

  Articles of impeachment which have been exhibited to the Senate may be 
subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, 
pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of 
impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for 
consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House 
(VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).


  For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of 
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see 
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4).


[[Page 305]]
cial accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a lord 
in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on the 
answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties to 
attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the 
articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1 
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a 
misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in 
writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation 
for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as 
the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer. 
Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a 
prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum. 
Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law, 
but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.



Sec. 610. Parliamentary law as to appearance 
of respondent.

  Appearance. If he  appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody; 
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but 
on spe




[[Page 306]]



Sec. 611. Requirements of the Senate as to 
appearance of respondent.

  This paragraph  of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete 
so far as the practice of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
are concerned. The accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 
2127, 2349, 2424), and take the stand in his own behalf (VI, 511, 524; 
Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29149), or he may not 
appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case he does not appear the 
House does not ask that he be compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the 
trial proceeds as on a plea of ``not guilty.'' It has been decided that 
the Senate has no power to take into custody the body of the accused 
(III, 2324, 2367). The writ of summons to the accused recites the 
articles and notifies him to appear at a fixed time and place and file 
his answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel 
(III, 2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent 
was insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present 
evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III, 
2333).





Sec. 612. Answer of respondent.

  Answer. The  answer need not 
observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part, 
and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole 
or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 
Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2 
Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 
Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.



  In the proceedings following the impeachment of President Andrew 
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one, 
denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set 
forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others 
(III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation 
of the replication in the House (III, 2431). Blount and Belknap demurred 
to the charges on the ground that they were not civil officers within 
the meaning of the Constitution (III, 2310, 2453), and Swanye also 
raised questions as to the jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The 
answer is part of the pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence 
may not properly be attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the 
respondent in impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and 
subsequently referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; 
Apr. 6, 1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).




Sec. 613. Other pleadings.

  Replication, rejoinder,  &c. There 
may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233; 
Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.



[[Page 307]]
(III, 2457). In the Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 
4971) impeachment proceedings, the managers on the part of the House 
prepared and submitted the replication to the Senate without its 
consideration by the House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The 
Senate may consider in closed session various preliminary motions made 
by respondent (e.g., to declare the Senate rule on appointment of a 
committee to receive evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond 
a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and 
to postpone the impeachment trial) prior to voting in open session to 
dispose of those motions (Oct. 7 and 8, 1986, pp. 29151 and 29412).

  A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern 
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the 
pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III, 
2455). A respondent has also filed a protest instead of pleading on the 
merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate 
barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to 
jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to 
admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III, 
2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in 
pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III, 
2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not 
touched in the articles has been discussed 




Sec. 614. Examination of witnesses.

  Witnesses. The  practice 
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or 
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on 
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in 
their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.



  In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in 
open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested 
(III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p. 
4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for 
impeachment trials to allow the Presiding Officer, upon the order of the 
Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in 
the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of 
Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of 
twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of 
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on 
Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon 
v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to 
declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take 
evidence and testimony.


[[Page 308]]
and goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds 
recorded in Parliament for misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the 
delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to 
be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the 
Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be 
impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the 
murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on 
impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived 
his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and 
Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are 
not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to 
be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more 
justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the 
conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria 
sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is 
undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts, 
and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord 
Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale, 
P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.



Sec. 615. Relation of jury trial to 
impeachment.

  Jury. In the  case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for 
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a 
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must 
also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the 
case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148. 
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands 



  No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the 
Constitution (III, 2313).


[[Page 309]]
they are to attend throughout, either as a committee of the whole 
House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to conduct the 
proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb., 1709-10; 2 
Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand it. Seld. 
Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when the Lords 
consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their judgment. Their 
presence, however, is necessary at the answer and judgment in case 
capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * * *.



Sec. 616. Attendance of the Commons.

  Presence of  Commons. 
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld. 
Jud., 124. Indeed, 





Sec. 617. Attendance of the House of 
Representatives.

  The  House of Representatives has consulted its own 
inclination and convenience about attending its managers at an 
impeachment. It did not attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, 
Archbald. Louderback and Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and 
after attending at the answer of Belknap, decided that it would be 
represented for the remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 
2453). At the trial of the President the House, in Committee of the 
Whole, attended throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is 
exceptional. In the Peck trial the House discussed the subject (III, 
2377) and reconsidered its decision to attend the trial daily (III, 
2028). While the Senate is deliberating the House does not attend (III, 
2435); but when the Senate votes on the charges, as at the other open 
proceedings of the trial, it may attend (III, 2388, 2383, 2440). While 
it has frequently attended in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a 
House (III, 2338).





Sec. 618. Voting on the articles in an impeachment 
trial.

  * * * The  Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is 
first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they 
convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which 
seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.



[[Page 310]]
trial there was much deliberation over this subject (III, 2466). In the 
Chase trial the Senate modified its former rule as to form of final 
question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are taken on each article 
separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form ``Senators, how say you? is the 
respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the 
trial of the President the Senate, by order, voted on the articles in an 
order differing from the numerical order (III, 2440), adjourned after 
voting on one article (III, 2441), and adjourned without day after 
voting on three of the eleven articles (III, 2443). In other 
impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to provide the method of 
voting and putting the question separately and successively on each 
article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558).

  The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned 
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of the 
President the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438, 2439). In 
the Belknap 


[[Page 311]]
ments (but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 
136.



Sec. 619. Judgment in 
impeachments.

  Judgment. Judgments in  Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per 
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to 
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment 
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld. 
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet 
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior 
courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and 
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the 
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful 
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by 
legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The 
Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward 
formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the 
Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In 
misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. 
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judg


  The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits 
the judgment to removal and disqualification.


  The order of judgment following conviction in an impeachment trial is 
divisible for a separate vote if it contains both removal and 
disqualification (III, 2397; VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an 
order of judgment requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 
5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted 
separately on the question of punishment (III, 2339, 2397), but under a 
recent ruling, no vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal 
from office following conviction, since removal follows automatically 
from conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 
17, 1936, p. 5607). Thus, the Presiding Officer directs judgment of 
removal from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office 
without separate action by the Senate on the question of punishment 
where disqualification is not contemplated (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873).




Sec. 620. Impeachment not interrupted by 
adjournments.

  Continuance. An  impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of 
Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.







  In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess 
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505); and the Pickering impeachment 
was presented in the Senate on the last day of the Seventh Congress 
(III, 2320); and at the beginning of the Eighth Congress the proceedings 
went on from that point (III, 2321). The resolution and articles of 
impeachment against Judge Louderback were presented in the Senate on the 
last day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515) and the Senate organized for and 
conducted the trial in the 73d Congress (VI, 516). The resolution and 
articles of impeachment against Judge Hastings were presented in the 
Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 
20223) but were still pending trial by the Senate in the 101st Congress, 
for which the House reappointed managers (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84). But an 
impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session (III, 2006, 
2462).