• Home
  • Independent Voter News
  • Quizzes
  • Election Dissection
  • Sections
  • Events
  • Directory
  • About Us
  • Glossary
  • Opinion
  • Campaign Finance
  • Redistricting
  • Civic Ed
  • Voting
  • Fact Check
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Big Picture>
  3. big picture>

Precedent? Nah, the Senate gets to reinvent its rules in every impeachment.

Kirsten Carlson
January 29, 2020
Precedent? Nah, the Senate gets to reinvent its rules in every impeachment.

The sun rises over the Senate on the first day of Trump's impeachment hearing, Jan. 21, 2020.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Carlson is an associate professor of law and adjunct associate professor of political science at Wayne State University.

Everybody seems to be using the word "precedent" right now.

Commentators, the media and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell use it when they discuss or debate the appropriate procedures for President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

The word has multiple meanings, though, so what people mean by "precedent" is often unclear and confusing.

The word "precedent" has a technical legal meaning and a common one.


Legally, it is a term of art that refers to a rule established in a court case. That rule is either binding or persuasive for other courts in deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.

Simply put, legal precedents obligate courts to follow the same rule and often determine the outcome in a similar case.

In common parlance, however, precedent has a different meaning.

In this use, it refers to an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in similar circumstances. This kind of precedent is nonbinding and merely instructive.

Unlike a court of law, prior impeachment trials serve as precedent only in the nonlegal, nonbinding sense.

The Senate can look to the procedures it has used in past impeachment proceedings, but those procedures do not have to be followed.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Constitution gives very little guidance on how an impeachment trial should proceed. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 states, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

After requiring that Senators be "on oath," that the chief justice preside and that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, the Constitution leaves it to the Senate to make its own rules about how to conduct the trial.

The Supreme Court in Walter L. Nixon v. the United States upheld the Senate's sole authority to determine how to run an impeachment trial. In that 1992-93 case, Judge Nixon, chief judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, objected to the procedures used by the Senate in his impeachment trial.

The Supreme Court held that courts cannot review the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments because the framers gave the authority to try impeachments to the Senate – not the courts. In short, the Senate gets to decide its procedures.

The Senate followed different procedures in the presidential impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Nothing says that they have to follow either of those past procedures now, which is why the Senate recently approved new rules to govern the impeachment trial of President Trump.

In adopting these rules, the Senate left the questions of admitting new evidence and witnesses unresolved. So the fight over procedures and precedents may not be over yet, especially since the Senate can change the rules by majority vote whenever it wants.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation

From Your Site Articles
  • Congress sullied its ultimate check on a president - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • U.S. Senate: Impeachment ›
  • Senate Impeachment Trial Schedule And How It Works : NPR ›
big picture

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

How a college freshman led the effort to honor titans of democracy reform

Jeremy Garson

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Jay Paterno

Re-imagining Title IX: An opportunity to flex our civic muscles

Lisa Kay Solomon

'Independent state legislature theory' is unconstitutional

Daniel O. Jamison

How afraid are we?

Debilyn Molineaux

Politicians certifying election results is risky and unnecessary

Kevin Johnson
latest News

How the anti-abortion movement shaped campaign finance law and paved the way for Trump

Amanda Becker, The 19th
24 June

Podcast: Journalist and political junkie Ken Rudin

Our Staff
24 June

A study in contrasts: Low-turnout runoffs vs. Alaska’s top-four, all-mail primary

David Meyers
23 June

Video: Team Democracy Urges Citizens to Sign SAFE Pledge

Our Staff
23 June

Podcast: Past, present, future

Our Staff
23 June

Video: America's vulnerable elections

Our Staff
22 June
Videos

Video: Memorial Day 2022

Our Staff

Video: Helping loved ones divided by politics

Our Staff

Video: What happened in Virginia?

Our Staff

Video: Infrastructure past, present, and future

Our Staff

Video: Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022

Our Staff

Video: Should we even have a debt limit

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Did economists move the Democrats to the right?

Our Staff
02 May

Podcast: The future of depolarization

Our Staff
11 February

Podcast: Sore losers are bad for democracy

Our Staff
20 January

Deconstructed Podcast from IVN

Our Staff
08 November 2021
Recommended
Bridge Alliance intern Sachi Bajaj speaks at the June 12 Civvy Awards.

How a college freshman led the effort to honor titans of democracy reform

Leadership
abortion law historian Mary Ziegler

How the anti-abortion movement shaped campaign finance law and paved the way for Trump

Campaign Finance
Podcast: Journalist and political junkie Ken Rudin

Podcast: Journalist and political junkie Ken Rudin

Media
Abortion rights and anti-abortion protestors at the Supreme Court

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Big Picture
Virginia primary voter

A study in contrasts: Low-turnout runoffs vs. Alaska’s top-four, all-mail primary

Video: Team Democracy Urges Citizens to Sign SAFE Pledge

Video: Team Democracy Urges Citizens to Sign SAFE Pledge

Voting