What do you think?
Rate this book
Impeachment: A Handbook
A guide to presidential impeachment. Charles L. Black seeks to clarify the issues and questions that surround this controversial subject.
- GenresLawPoliticsNonfiction
80 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1974
4 people are currently reading
102 people want to read
About the author
Charles L. Black Jr.
17 books7 followersCharles Lund Black, Jr. was an American scholar of constitutional law, which he taught as professor of law from 1947 to 1999.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 24, 2017
Written in 1974 during the Nixon impeachment era this book is an excellent reference on the legal aspects of the Presidential impeachment, written by author Charles Lund Black, Jr. an American scholar of constitutional law.
The book covers the procedures of an impeachment, as well as details of what are classified as impeachable offenses. Additional references are included at the back of the book as well.
This book is short and concise, and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the process of impeachment better.
The book covers the procedures of an impeachment, as well as details of what are classified as impeachable offenses. Additional references are included at the back of the book as well.
This book is short and concise, and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the process of impeachment better.
August 27, 2018
Charles L. Black, Jr. (1915-2001) was one the preeminent constitutional law scholars of the second
half 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), 1
Thus, 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 must
ask 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. 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.
half 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), 1
Thus, 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 must
ask 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. 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.
January 20, 2018
Professor Black Jr.'s "Impeachment: A Handbook" is an excellent guide to the theory and practice of presidential impeachment. However, it is a bit dated in the sense that Black Jr. was to some extent focused on Nixon. For example, he ends a very short discussion of treason as a ground for impeachment by stating that "[s]ince the situation in our times has in no way implicated 'treason,' the subject may be put to one side." Therefore, while Black Jr.'s book remains essential reading for those interested in how impeachment works and when it should be used, I would recommend Professor Sunstein's "Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide" as the place to start. I have also reviewed that book and will not copy my review here.
February 11, 2021
Thought when the first impeachment trial ended I had lost my chance to read this book while it was relevant...but lookie, I got a second chance!
This is a slim volume written in the Nixon era covering the process of impeachment and what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanour. The legal reasoning and plain-spoken writing style are very elegant and I enjoyed reading it.
The contents are most relevant to impeachments of the past like Nixon, Clinton, Trump Impeachment 1. The central question of Trump Impeachment 2 (according to Republican senators at least) whether you can impeach someone who's out of office, is not covered. There are newer books on impeachment that came out over the last four years that may be more relevant, and I haven't read them, but this was an excellent background.
This is a slim volume written in the Nixon era covering the process of impeachment and what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanour. The legal reasoning and plain-spoken writing style are very elegant and I enjoyed reading it.
The contents are most relevant to impeachments of the past like Nixon, Clinton, Trump Impeachment 1. The central question of Trump Impeachment 2 (according to Republican senators at least) whether you can impeach someone who's out of office, is not covered. There are newer books on impeachment that came out over the last four years that may be more relevant, and I haven't read them, but this was an excellent background.
Want to read
July 21, 2017Core chapter available online here:
https://lawfareblog.com/impeachable-o...
And an essay by Jane Chong applying Charles Black's analysis to our current situation with Russia and 45 (as of 7/20/17):
https://lawfareblog.com/impeach-presi...
https://lawfareblog.com/impeachable-o...
And an essay by Jane Chong applying Charles Black's analysis to our current situation with Russia and 45 (as of 7/20/17):
https://lawfareblog.com/impeach-presi...
January 22, 2018
This is a very short but dense book that goes over the impeachment process. It was written during the Nixon administration but remains timely today. It could easily have been written during the Clinton impeachment or during the current administration.
July 23, 2018
Originally written when it was becoming obvious that Nixon may be facing impeachment, it has become relevant again today. Great background and discussion of what would and would not constitute an impeachable offense, by a law prof.
August 24, 2017
Great treatise for laymen on the process and impeachment law.
October 14, 2019
Simple overview of the Constitutional questions around impeachment, and process. Quick read
October 19, 2019
This ~65 page book written during Watergate is essential reading to understanding the impeachment process.
May 11, 2020
Great coverage in just of few pages of impeachment in the US
March 11, 2017
Interesting, but very much a product of the Nixon era. It focused so much on that situation that it glossed over certain parts that would have been of interest.
The author said that this book was meant for anyone, but it got very tangled in legal stuff which I found hard to follow.
The author said that this book was meant for anyone, but it got very tangled in legal stuff which I found hard to follow.
July 28, 2019
Charles Black's handbook was written during Nixon's impeachment inquiry, for the edification of the public, and it remains a useful work for anyone who wants to understand the Constitutional means we have of investigating and (potentially) removing a U.S. President who commits "Treason, Bribery or high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Black is a constitutional scholar, but this book is for the layperson, and I found it simple to read, well organized and easy to grasp (it's also admirably short). I highly recommend it to anyone seeking a grounding on the facts of this issue.
February 28, 2018
This short work, dating from 1974, is a good primer on impeachment, the more so because it is more than 40 years removed from the turbulent demands, exhortations, and speculations of our current era.
I do, however, have a couple of objections. First, the author acknowledges the political nature of an impeachment by the House and Trial by the Senate--a thing stated explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 65 (a work which contains the most prescient description of what any impeachment proceeding must necessarily be like)--but then argues that it ought to follow the forms of a judicial proceeding, and so ought to be considered a judicial proceeding. One may certainly argue that judicial forms (especially procedural due process) ought to be followed; however, it is another thing entirely to say that this should make impeachment a judicial proceeding, particularly considering the highly-charged political nature foreseen by Hamilton of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and what would have been the certain impeachment and expulsion of President Nixon.
Additionally, there are a few instances of language that the author uses that might leave a lay person with a wrong impression. For example, toward the end of the work, in Chapter 4: Impeachment and the Courts, the author states that "... no general constitutional objection prevents Congress from enlisting the aid of the courts in ways ancillary to its own responsibilities." This language is too casual. The federal courts are a separate branch, and while Congress may initiate a case or controversy, when it does so, it places itself in the position of one of the parties subject to the judgment of the court, and does not take the court to be its helpmeet. It's also worth noting that Congress could not seek advisory opinions from a federal court, the Supreme Court early in its existence affirming the constitutional stipulation that a federal court may only decide "cases and controversies" that come before it. There are just a few other instances like this where more clear language or a few additional words of elaboration would remove the chance of a reader coming away with deficient understanding.
Other than that, it is a good introduction to impeachment, although I would recommend reading Federalist No. 65 first.
I do, however, have a couple of objections. First, the author acknowledges the political nature of an impeachment by the House and Trial by the Senate--a thing stated explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 65 (a work which contains the most prescient description of what any impeachment proceeding must necessarily be like)--but then argues that it ought to follow the forms of a judicial proceeding, and so ought to be considered a judicial proceeding. One may certainly argue that judicial forms (especially procedural due process) ought to be followed; however, it is another thing entirely to say that this should make impeachment a judicial proceeding, particularly considering the highly-charged political nature foreseen by Hamilton of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and what would have been the certain impeachment and expulsion of President Nixon.
Additionally, there are a few instances of language that the author uses that might leave a lay person with a wrong impression. For example, toward the end of the work, in Chapter 4: Impeachment and the Courts, the author states that "... no general constitutional objection prevents Congress from enlisting the aid of the courts in ways ancillary to its own responsibilities." This language is too casual. The federal courts are a separate branch, and while Congress may initiate a case or controversy, when it does so, it places itself in the position of one of the parties subject to the judgment of the court, and does not take the court to be its helpmeet. It's also worth noting that Congress could not seek advisory opinions from a federal court, the Supreme Court early in its existence affirming the constitutional stipulation that a federal court may only decide "cases and controversies" that come before it. There are just a few other instances like this where more clear language or a few additional words of elaboration would remove the chance of a reader coming away with deficient understanding.
Other than that, it is a good introduction to impeachment, although I would recommend reading Federalist No. 65 first.
June 9, 2018
just what I needed.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews