Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide

by Cass R. Sunstein

An essential guide to the impeachment process that rises above politics and goes beyond punditry, from one of America's foremost legal experts, including analysis of the Mueller Report.

As Benjamin Franklin famously put it, Americans have a republic, if we can keep it. Preserving the Constitution and the democratic system it supports is the public's responsibility. One route the Constitution provides for discharging that duty--a route rarely traveled--is impeachment.

Harvard Law professor Cass R. Sunstein provides a succinct citizen's guide to this essential tool of self-government. Taking us deeper than mere partisan politics, he illuminates the constitutional design behind impeachment and emphasizes the people's role in holding presidents accountable. In spite of the loud national debate between pundits and politicians alike over whether or not to impeach Trump, impeachment remains widely misunderstood. Sunstein identifies and corrects a number of common misconceptions. For example, he shows how the Constitution, not the House of Representatives, establishes grounds for impeachment, and that the president can be impeached for abuses of power that do not violate the law. Even neglect of duty counts among the "high crimes and misdemeanors" delineated in the republic's foundational document. Sunstein describes how impeachment helps make sense of our constitutional order, particularly the framers' controversial decision to install an empowered executive in a nation deeply fearful of kings.

With an eye toward the past and the future, Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide considers a host of actual and imaginable arguments for a president's removal, explaining why some cases are easy and others hard, why some arguments for impeachment have been judicious and others not. And with an appendix on the Mueller report, it puts the current national debate in its proper historical context. In direct and approachable terms, it dispels the fog surrounding impeachment so that Americans of all political convictions may use their ultimate civic authority wisely.

Genres: Politics, History, Law, Nonfiction, Government, American History, Political Science

224 pages, Paperback

First published June 25, 2019

About the author

Cass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.

Reviews

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think the law is fascinating. I’ve said something like this on Goodreads before, but let me repeat it:

Imagine of a bunch of philosophers arguing some complex point. They decide they’re going to agree to disagree, because the problem is a hard one. But someone comes in and tells them: nope, you’re not leaving until you agree. It doesn’t need to be perfect, but it needs to be workable. Those philosophers would probably riot, but that’s what judges — well, at the appellate level and above — do all the time. It’s also what the founders did with the Constitution.

They actually are allowed to agree to disagree — a disagreement is what the minority opinions are, and something similar exists within the Federalist Papers. But the winners have to explain how to do things, not just vague aspirational ideas about what should be done. The result is seldom perfect, but is necessarily workable. Seeing how they identify those problems and iterate towards a solution is enlightening. How did we get where we are?

This book shows that. The author goes into the history of impeachment, which wasn’t some little side show of little concern — it was considered of critical importance, even though it was designed to be used seldom and only under extreme circumstances.

The centuries just before the American revolution, Britain had been undergoing a long process of slowly growing mistrust of central authority. As Sunstein says on page 35 —

❝In 1679, nearly a hundred years before the American founding, it was proclaimed in the House of Commons that impeachment was “the chief institution for the preservation of the government.”❞

Of the government? Yes: impeachment provided a peaceful way of removing executives. Otherwise, the result could be violence or revolution. There was broad agreement in the new America that the country needed a single individual holding executive power. One part of the solution were the checks and balances, the other was the ultimate weapon of peaceful removal of that executive.

There’s a lot of fascinating detail in the book. The argument that led to the precise wording of the impeachment clause is the heart, I think, but his carefully argued list of 21 examples of when impeachment would be an easy or hard decision for the Congress to make was great also, as was his analysis of what was correct and incorrect in each of the three presidential impeachments the country has considered (well, four, but that early one wasn’t as carefully reviewed).

Okay, I’m going to throw in one grumble. It isn’t a spoiler, but I’m going to hide it because it really is just a minor complaint. (I hope you read it and think about it, though.)

I took a graduate class twenty years ago in the teaching of critical thinking, and although I received an “A”, I thought it was a horrible course. Anyone using that course as a guide for teaching undergraduates would spend far too much time on formal logic and various syllogistic fallacies. My opinion is that formal logic is largely irrelevant; the problem is that people too often settle for what their “common sense” tells them, and I think students need to be trained on various forms of “uncommon sense”, which really demands that they learn to question their initial opinions in the light of what cognitive science has taught us. At that point, I had already stumbled on the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, as well as the implications of game theory.

So ever since then, I’ve been paying even closer attention to that topic. In the ensuing years, the science of Cognitive Psychology has accelerated and has demonstrated our common sense is wrong so often it is, frankly, laughable.

On page 152-3, Sunstein is making the case for the Senate as the more deliberative body, and uses an old story featuring Jefferson and Washington. Jefferson is suspicious that the Senate would impede the “We the People” populist judgements. Washington points to Jefferson’s coffee and points out that he lets it cool a bit before drinking it, and the Senate is there to cool down legislation.

My problem? This is arguing by metaphor, and I was surprised Sunstein let it stay in his book. The problem is that this doesn’t answer the question, it just dodges it. What is this metaphorical “cooling” that is supposed to be so beneficial? Clearly, coffee that is too hot would be injurious to the person doing the swallowing. Was Jefferson mollified by effectively being told that “We the People” may push legislation that is actually harmful to the republic? The problem is a tough one, and this little story does nothing to actually resolve it.

Drawing conclusions based on loosely constructed analogies (or metaphors) is actually a huge problem. For example, a legislator might think of the environment as kind of like the human body: both will heal over time, right? But that might lead them to miss staggeringly critical differences.

This is just an example. Almost any argument relying on an analogy or metaphor will be flawed; it takes an act of effortful “uncommon sense” to discern how, and whether, the flaw is fatal to the argument.

It’s my only complaint.

[Keith Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Impeachment is not an anti-Trump screed, nor is it a dry dissertation on Constitutional law. Sunstein's book is an engaging exploration of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution, what the framers of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote it and how it has been interpreted over the years.

Having just rebelled against a monarchy, many of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention were apposed to any sort of executive leader. As a compromise a system was created to remove the President from office, but the system had to be difficult enough that impeachment did not become a tool of partisan fighting. Which is not to say that it has not been used for that purpose, see the Clinton impeachment. Policy disagreement, general incompetence, and being a public embarrassment to the nation are not grounds for impeachment. Some actual crimes committed by the President do not rise to the level of impeachment, but some actions that are not legally crimes can qualify as impeachable offenses. The author also explores the 25th amendment, which added another way of removing the President from office based on incapacity, and in turn raised many more questions.

Although the name Trump is never mentioned in the book, the timeliness of its subject causes the current President to loom of the discussion. It increasingly appears that within the next few years we will witness another impeachment proceeding with more merit behind it than the last one. I recommend this book as an excellent and very readable overview of the history and legal thought behind impeachment and why it must not be invoked frivolously but must be invoked when there is just cause.

[Lenny D · Rating 4 out of 5]

How does one achieve the stature of Cass Sunstein? Famous in both academia and government, the Harvard Law professor seems to pop up in so many areas of policy that I wonder if he even has a specialty. His ubiquity in the public square is explained, in part, by his ability to quickly dash off missives like Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide whenever he feels something gnawing at him. (This is the same guy, after all, who wrote a book on the moral dimensions of watching Star Wars with your kid.) In this case, we're better for him having entered the fray.

Sunstein has written a quick, readable primer on an issue looming over every senescent philippic tweeted by Donald Trump: what mechanisms exist to remove the US president from power? The name "Trump" doesn't appear once in the book, and in fact Sunstein takes pains to avoid contouring any of it to the specifics of the present day. Still, it's obvious why he thought this book necessary.

The result is basically a long white paper that surveys impeachment history and law, complete with recommendations and judgments based on Sunstein's legal reasoning. There's plenty of room to differ with him, but he does a reasonably good job of pointing out areas of potential disagreement. I guess that's the whole point of legal reasoning.

Sunstein opens by noting that for as important a power as impeachment is, it's not very well understood. He recounts that when Bill Clinton got impeached in 1998, Sunstein was called upon by media and other people to provide expertise on the subject. These requests surprised him, given that he wasn't at all an expert on impeachment, but he quickly realized that no one else was either. So he made it his business to read the history and case law, and turned himself into a serviceable authority. Now that impeachment talk is in the air again, his primer emerges timely and timeless.

Sunstein's argument, briefly: While impeachment is deliberately intended to be a political construct, the Constitution enshrines an unmistakeable legal standard for when it is appropriate. We need to understand that standard, even if it's not always honored. Broadly, the test for impeachment is whether the president (or any "civil officer") has abused their power in bad faith. That's the gist of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The need for impeachment was rooted in the Founders' fear of monarchy. Impeachment was among the first American deviations from English law, with differences in our application of the concept visible as far back as the seventeenth century. By the time the Constitutional Convention rolled around, one primary goal was to enable the creation of a "unitary" executive who was powerful but nonetheless subject to law. Impeachment was the escapement that permitted that power. The subject was debated relatively lightly in the convention, but it featured prominently when the framers were trying to sell the Constitution to the American people. There the concept reduced to, yes you have a powerful magistrate, but he is limited to a four-year term and you can impeach him if he abuses power.

It was a simple setup, but it made me appreciate how deliberately architected our system of government is. Whereas other countries are laden with centuries of civil law and bear the scars of frequent overhaul (France comes to mind) our system was engineered from the start. More impressive examples of this architecture may exist—Hamiltonian economics for one—but impeachment was a wise safety valve on executive power.

Sunstein argues that the framers wanted impeachment to apply only to circumstances of official malfeasance. They wanted the electoral process to solve questions of judgment, character, etc, and were wary of political vendettas. Therefore, they set a high threshold for impeachment. The House takes on the role of the grand jury, who by simple majority can vote to indict (impeach) the civil officer on specific articles. The Senate then becomes the jury, who can vote to remove the officer by a 2/3 majority. Only two presidents have been impeached, Johnson and Clinton, and neither was removed. (Nineteen impeachments total have been handed down, mostly to judges.)

(Side note: there's a great anecdote about how Washington justified the need for a Senate to the vigorously populist Jefferson by likening it to the cup that you pour coffee into to cool it off between the pot and your mouth.)

Given that the process imitates a court case, Sunstein insists that the legal standard is material. Yes, impeachment is primarily a political concept, but when it comes time for Senators to take an oath from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and deliberate whether to remove a president by force, you want there to be a precedent to look to and a theory to uphold. Still, there's no real guarantee that his legal standard will be honored. Actually, he argues that both presidential impeachments in history violated this standard. Nixon deserved it, but only for some of his articles of impeachment.

(BTW, Sunstein's presentation of American government, from its founding to its theoretical future, is very rose-tinted. Not unrealistically romantic, but reliant on an idea of "good faith" that I rarely see demonstrated by today's idiotic officials. This book may have been written as a response to Trumpian concerns, but its reverence for the American system of government and the people entrusted to discharge it seem like kind of a throwback. Clinton's unjust impeachment is a pearl-clutching aberration to him, rather than a reflection of our government's present reality as a no-holds-barred battle between ideologies and monied interests.)

The portrait of impeachment that Sunstein goes on to create seems to indemnify the president more than to expose him to removal. The author is adamant that impeachment be available only in response to bad faith actions undertaken in the context of, but outside the honorable discharge of, his power as president. Unpopularity, bad judgment, "maladministration," misdeeds from before the presidency, and even crimes for which he might be prosecutable in civilian life are not grounds for impeachment. (One helpful contrast between impeachment and criminal prosecution: impeachment is about the president "losing his job, not his liberty.")

Sunstein believes the framers considered these various scenarios and decided to let the president focus his "energies" on running the country. That means Nixon lying about bombing Cambodia is not grounds for impeachment, nor is an eyebrow-raising pardon. (Probably.) On p. 127 he emphasizes: "It is not a misdemeanor for a president to act on the basis of a reasonable belief that he had the authority to act as he did." Basically, the first question citizens should ask is, "Is he trying to follow the law?"

Impeachment is there to kick out someone who abuses or neglects their power as president. Treason; corruption; using the FBI to molest adversaries; colluding with a foreign power to get elected; deciding to take a six month sabbatical. All impeachable. Whether a politically-motivated pardon qualifies is left unmentioned, which is an oversight on the author's part. I think Sunstein would say it is impeachable.

In any event, we don't yet know the full extent of Trump's collusion with Russia. He doesn't seem like a lock for impeachment on those grounds, and by these standards, just yet. (On the basis of his many conflicts of interest, sure.) I think firing Mueller or pardoning Mike Flynn before we have a chance to hear his testimony would constitute an impeachable abuse of power. Actually, the most impeachable president I've seen, based on this definition, is George W. Bush. That administration knowingly falsified information and told lies in public. If we had proved that, which no one formally tried to, I think there would have been a good case for impeachment prior to 2008.

Ultimately, though, despite the legal standard that Sunstein believes he's established, the key to impeachment is that it remains in political hands. "We the People, acting through the constitutional channels, get to define 'misdemeanors' as we see fit" (131). Which is probably for the best. No one wants an ancient statute to imprison us with a malfeasant leader, and the Constitution's strength lies in permitting flexibilities like that.

In the event that the president is incapacitated, rather than untrustworthy, the 25th Amendment has existed since 1967 to solve those questions. Briefly, that amendment offers the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or another "body as Congress may by law provide" the chance to remove the president from power. (It also offers the president the chance to petition for his continued capacity. I really hope I get to see this one day.) Anyway, correcting for a lack of ability is not what impeachment is for. "Languishing alive, Twenty-five" is my mnemonic.

Last thought: I haven't read a great deal of constitutional law, but I bet all of it belies the comedy of any "end of history" myth. The elegant stability of representative democracy, at least as embodied here in the USA, is a carefully planned and managed mirage. Yes, the rule of law supersedes, but ultimately, we're still making this shit up as we go along. Impeachment is a rarely-used safety valve by design. Therefore, it's got far less jurisprudence behind it than other provisions in the Constitution. If politics continues to be conducted in bad faith, though, it's inevitable that we'll see more of it in the future.

[Ed Erwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

No current politicians or scandals are mentioned in this book.* It is about the history of the idea of impeachment in the USA, and even back into England. Excellent and informative.

A lot of the book focuses on what exactly are impeachable offenses. It will probably surprise you. Committing a crime is not necessary. Most crimes, up to and including murder, are not impeachable offenses. A crime must be related to the office and duties of the elected official to be impeachable. Intentionally disobeying the law is not impeachable, as long as there is some good-faith argument that can be made about why the law did not apply or was unconstitutional. On the other hand, an official can be impeached for taking too many vacations or not taking enough action to protect the public in an emergency situation. Really fascinating stuff, and perfect for reading on July 4.

* I read the 2017 edition. A later edition add on a discussion of the Mueller report.

[HR-ML · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sunstein was a trained attorney, law professor,
and also as a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC) inside the Dept. of Justice, where he worked
assisting Presidents Carter, then Reagan. He had
dealings w/ Presidents Clinton and Obama in other
capacities.

No doubt Sunstein knew the law, but he was vague
on what "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant.
He summarized the Mueller report 59-84%, w/o foot-
notes. Sunstein quoted the US Constituion framers
and Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton.
Framers argued quite a bit over the need for impeach-
ment proceedings of the President and what specific
abuse of his official authority justified impeachment?

Impeachments proceedings could also be brought against
federal "civil officers" IE members of the President's
Cabinet and federal judges.

"High crimes & misdemeanors ( hereafter HC & M)
against the united States?" The framers automatically
included a President's treason & bribery while in office.
They added corrupt treaties favorable to a foreign power,
the emolument clause: with a compromised President
who received gifts from a foreign nation for favors.
If I understood the author correctly, the framers had
other examples of "HC & M" besides the aforementioned.

Sunstein discussed 3 US Presdents (POTUS) subjected to
impeachment proceedings in the US House:Andrew John-
son (over firing his secretary of war) Bill Clinton (perjuring
himself & demanding a woman perjure herself RE his sexual
liaisons) and Richard Nixon (too many to list!). Sunstein
thought the first 2 were unjustified uses of impeachment,
butNixon fit the criteria. Clinton's case went to the US Senate
which did not have enough votes (they needed 2/3 of the
Senate) to remove him from office.

The part I liked the best: the 25th Amendment discussion.
Whose purpose was to temporarily replace the President
(who underwent surgery, or recovered from illness) w/ the
Vice President. Or permanently replace him/ her (POTUS)
due to mental or physical disability. Three POTUS needed
this before it became law: President Garfield (who lingered
mos after an asssisination attempt), Pres. Wilson (who
remained 2 yrs. in office after a massive stroke) & Pres.
Eisenhower (who needed rest/ rehab after a heart attack &
subsequent heart issues).

The author ventured a guess that Mueller's report implied
that President Trump could be indicted for irregularities in
his official capacity, in future. The US House would initiate
this process.

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sobering and informative (doubly so given the current news cycle). A relatively quick read, although I think it might be a bit intimidating for those who don’t have some background in politics and/or law. Sunstein nicely lays out the history and quirks of the Constitution’s impeachment mechanisms along with providing some examples (both real and imagined) to help explain.

For those who are following the current presidential crisis in America, this is pretty close to required reading. Highly recommended.

[Erica · Rating 4 out of 5]

My 1L Con law professor was obsessed with impeachment. Most classes cover impeachment only as a side note, but we spent at least a day or two on it (which is a lot). The professor recommended this book several times, and I bought a copy to read before the final. There wasn’t a question about impeachment on the final, so I didn’t need the book then, but I certainly need it now.

Sunstein walks his readers through the text of the Constitution, what the framers might have intended, the three presidential and nineteen federal official (that’s it!) impeachments in American history, and implications for today. It’s a brief yet informative book that I would highly recommend if you want to understand what’s happening in the House right now.

[Adrian Mendoza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading.

[Emily Ancinec · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential and timely read.

[Don Gerstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one who was not a fan of Cass Sunstein in 2008, I hesitated to purchase this book. In the end, I fell back on what usually drives me, which is you can't learn anything if you only read one side.

For most of Mr. Sunstein's part of the book (about 40% is dedicated to excerpts from The Mueller Report), I was pleasantly surprised. His history of the Founding Fathers and the creation of The Constitution was entertaining and informative. As to be expected, extensive time centered around the concept of Impeachment. This included the arguments between those crafting the Constitution, some of the initial drafts, and why the Founders ultimately chose to use the words they did.

From Chapter 1, in the author’s own words: “My principal goal in this book is to try to dissolve the mist, and in the process recover something about our nation’s origins and aspirations.” An admirable goal, and had the author stopped there, the book might have finished untainted by a partisan view. I should have known better but missed the importance of the next sentence: “But what ultimately inspired me to pursue this topic was something far more personal.”

I will stop here and say, for the information in Chapters 1-10, I would encourage everyone to read this book. Mr. Sunstein presents a well-rounded view of not only what constitutes impeachment, but also delves into the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (dealing with situations when the President is unable to discharge his duties). He challenges the issues from both sides of the aisle, always falling back to the Constitution for guidance. Kudos for these chapters…except for the couple of nudges slipped in.

For a test case example, the author described events preceding the 2016 election (based on what some believe happened), and without naming any names, Mr. Sunstein declares that the President should be impeached. He refers back to this case a number of times, nudging us in the direction that will lead us to the Afterward. Everything comes together here, where the Mueller report is quoted along with Nancy Pelosi. The author takes Ms. Pelosi to task for her statement that impeachment is “divisive” and “unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

Based on Mr. Sunstein’s own statements, that history demonstrates that a President will be acquitted of impeachment unless most of the country is in agreement against that finding, his argument as to what Ms. Pelosi really meant don’t hold water. Although the author continues to nudge us toward his ultimate conclusion, that President Trump should be impeached and Ms. Pelosi is not doing her duty, it is important to also consider Mr. Sunstein’s words when he is offering his explanation of Mr. Mueller’s report. The author feels that Mr. Mueller “…declined to say that Trump committed obstruction of justice (though for reasons sketched above, he probably thinks that he did.” The key words here are “he probably thinks that he did,” as Mr. Sunstein would need to clarify with Mr. Mueller exactly what he meant in the report (not to mention giving Ms. Pelosi the same courtesy). Thus the author’s insistence on impeaching the President lies on his interpretation of what Mr. Mueller said. (In fairness, if Mr. Mueller stated unequivocally that he meant exactly what Mr. Sunstein insists he meant, I would be forced to rethink my own thoughts).

Bottom line: Recommended reading for everyone, as it is a good history lesson and clearly explains what impeachment is and when it should be used. The Afterward contains Mr. Sunstein’s personal thoughts (see paragraph 3 above) and the rest of the book are excerpts from the Mueller report (the author does suggest one may read the entire report, which can be found elsewhere. Although I was not happy with the nudges, it is not fair to award less stars because of them. Most of the book was good, informative reading. Three-and-a-half, rounded to four stars.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The historical review was very good, but I lost interest in the numerous mini-cases of impeach yes or no.

[Kieran Healy · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you've never read the Federalist Papers or studied constitutional law, this is a great starter book on what today is a very topical issue (considering the House is handing down two articles of impeachment as I write this). The best three things Sunstein does here is 1) Dispel typical views about impeachment which are constitutionally way off base and 2) provide the reader with the proper approach to considering impeachment and 3) Firmly dispute the common notion that impeachment is either a criminal process (it isn't) or for a an actual crime (also untrue).

In today's political environment, people are typically throwing around the word "impeachment" without knowing what the process is, or what the Framers were considering when they were putting the constitution together and pitching it to the young nation. Sunstein does the admirable service of wiping that thought process away and then providing a basic groundwork for what the Framers would've LIKELY considered impeachable offenses; why the created the process the way they did; how WE should approach our questioning of what an impeachable offense is; removing prejudice and arguing facts.

At times, Sunstein veers off into his own opinions, which made me wonder at times if I was reading as honest a book as I believed (he did work for Obama after all). But he also makes it clear that the opinions are his own, and that sometimes the Supreme Court and Congress disagrees with him. So I felt comfortable that when he stated something as a fact or at least an honest interpretation of something, and that he flagged his own editorializing when needed.

Highly recommended. Knocked off a star for some of the bad jokes and making me wonder at times if I was reading a complete picture of the creation of the impeachment process.

[Jeremy Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ten years ago, Cass Sunstein published a very different book, about "Going to Extremes," in which he made this statement: "If group members think that what happened is not a big deal, they will usually think that what happened is basically nothing after a period of discussion." At the time it was published and I read it in 2009, extremism was a bit more muted, with zealous radicalism stuck behind reasonable walls of more accurate, more studied, more researched information. Today, extremism runs Washington, at the highest office, with an executive that spins wildly fantastic propaganda, using the power and the voice of that office to ensure the brazenness of such falsehoods get further traction among those already predisposed to embrace alternative realities. And the party loves him for it.

Nevertheless, Cass' book on Impeachment manages to thread a very careful needle, one of strictly worded moderation, especially in the Trump era, one that outlines how inconsistent our elected leaders have conducted themselves on the subject and how partisan the process has become even when elected leaders make constitutionally obligated decisions on the subject. The recorded history of impeachments here, even beyond the presidency, are an incredible resource that informs rather than emboldens. Sunstein does not make a case for, but a case of impeachment as it was intended.

[Michael Esposito · Rating 4 out of 5]

The constitution is useless if it is not a living document. So much of what was written in the 1770s needs to be interpreted today. We are failed by those in office who take the constitution as fact.

It is shocking how aged this books modern parts can feel in just 7 short years. Useless impeachment inquires by both republicans and democrats. No doubt, the books past already saw those coming though with Jackson and Clinton. Unfortunately, the utility of government in America is not on the rise. Party lines have separated us intensely since the 1960s and it has only been worse with time. “We the people,” by allowing this charade to grow, have only further diminished the powerful tools the founding fathers provided us.

[Jim Twombly · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I don't agree with all of Sunstein's conclusions, one can't argue with his mastery of the subject, not his great narrative style in presenting his arguments. This is an important topic for all Americans to be at least somewhat aware of at any time, but especially in these controversial times.

[Lordoftaipo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cass R. Sunstein delivers what is purported on the book's subtitle: a citizen’s guide. The succinctly written dos and don’ts is the legal professor’s latest attempt to clear the air surrounding the mounting discord prior to the actual term of the erstwhile president elect.

As we now see, two impeachments have successively and successfully won the House’s nod, and relayed to the Senate only to be met by eventual acquittal. Within the scope available up to the first impeachment, Sunstein dedicates the afterword to it and disagrees with letting Donald Trump go.

What Sunstein has deemed necessary enshrines the founding aspirations, the pursuit of which is in line with the exceedingly huge literature written at the dawn of the United States, notably by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. One can detect his constitutional fervour as much as disinterested scholarship bearing a resemblance to the Founding Fathers, which sets his guide apart from an unpalatable tirade.

[Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very informative book. It is written in an accessible way and any US citizen would benefit by reading it.

[Pat Rolston · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author provides a grounded and very clear basis for understanding the Founding Fathers intentions regarding impeachment. The historical roots of impeachment are traced through case studies. This is as good as any means I can imagine to educate yourself allowing for critical thinking as applied to current t and potential future impeachment proceedings.

[Jared Pangier · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people" (Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis as quoted in Impeachment, page 174).

That quote spoke to me and it is one reason why I chose to read Impeachment. It spoke to me because I believe that each individual has a responsibility. As a language arts teacher, my responsibility is to guide my students to grow as a whole individual--academically, socially, and morally. (I will leave the physical aspect to P.E.) While moral education is often seen as something out of the purview of educators, I disagree. A wise former teacher of mine shared his own morsel of wisdom as I moved to begin my own teaching career: "If you (as a teacher) allow something to happen, you condone it." Those words have not only guided my teaching career but they have also guided my journey through life. And it is that idea which provides purpose for something like the impeachment mechanism.

So who should read a book like Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide? As the title suggests, all citizens (and former citizens, as is true for me) of America. If you are a citizen of America, it is important to understand how the governing system works. As we observe the current political climate, it is important to have a clear understanding of our rights as a country. Who can be impeached? How does that process work? And what makes a person impeachable? All those questions are answered in this book, adding clarity to the fuzziness of constitutional law.

Not only does this book answer those questions but it also provides a perspective into how America's founding fathers established a way to keep power in check. Remember, America was founded because of a distaste for abuse of power, abuse of power being one of the reasons for impeachment. And so, if you like most people, find yourself in an environment where power has corrupted, understanding how a country like America originally addressed this threat helps provide perspective for how you might effect positive change in your environment, be it workplace or country, in order to promote the three inalienable rights of all citizens of earth: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Educate yourself on the political version of the Sword of Damocles. Do so by picking up Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide.

Only 175 thick pages with real historical examples and hypothetical situations to provide clarity to a relevant topic.

For more information about the author, hear him interviewed by Sam Harris here: https://samharris.org/podcasts/defend...

#HISReads #Book-a-Week Challenge -- Book #3
http://teaching.jaredpangier.com/his-...

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential. It was sobering to be confronted by how much I didn't know about such an important subject. Sunstein explains the law in a straightforward way, and with an appropriate historical perspective. He makes clear that the bar for impeachment is intentionally quite high, which is why even very bad presidents have not been impeached and those that have should not have been. Only Nixon passes the test (but he, of course, he resigned before he was impeached). I am in awe of the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in how they kept so many things in perfect balance and the impeachment process is but another example: in which the more impetuous House must decide whether to indict and then, after a deep breath, the more dispassionate Senate, overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, must then decide whether to convict. This process assures that it is not too easy for the legislature to usurp the executive. To paraphrase Franklin, this process is among the many safeguards that allows us to keep the republic that the framers created. A well written, easily understood book that I highly recommend.

[Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engaging and well-cited; succinct, but also dense at the same time. Sunstein is unfailingly honest and unbiased - the book wouldn't be worth a damn if he weren't. Enormously important for understanding all of the conversations coming up - we impeach folks who aren't Presidents, which might be worth remembering if your Reps & Senators aren't up to snuff, and hope for the 25th needs to be let go. On the other hand, the current resident of 1600 is easily impeachable, right now, with either an originalist or broad interpretation, and it's all in this book. Buy several copies and hurl them at Trumpists.

[Bernard Farrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clearly written and easy to follow, this book provides the constitutional history and background for impeachment. It shows how impeachment is an important aspect of ensuring that presidents and other American elected officials, follow the laws and morals of their office properly.

One of the most useful chapters outlines a number of possible offences and explains why they are or are not impeachable, or where the question is ambiguous.

I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a better understanding of the impeachment process and when it's applicable to an office holder.

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book in its own right but in today's politics it is really important and not just for the obvious (I hope) reasons. It's a clearly written piece on what the Framers had in mind for a little understood part of the constitution (and the 25th) and helps guide what impeachemet is for and what it is not.

[Eric Gilliland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cass Sunstein's Impeachment: A Citizens Guide explains the concept of impeachment from a constitutional scholar's perspective that's written in plain English.


A Citizen's Guide explains the origins of impeachment, a concept that goes back to the English legal system, laws designed to set up parameters for a judge or public official to be removed from their position if they engaged in criminal activity. Sunstein walks the reader through the debates at the 1787 constitutional convention on impeachment. In creating three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) the framers realized there had to be a balance of power. Being well schooled in history, they realized the rise of a tyrant posed the greatest threat to a republic.


At one point the convention favored a committee to act as the Chief Executive, but determined such an arrangement would be too unwieldy. A lone President would allow for decisive leadership. What if a President engaged in illegal activity? What if a President openly broke the law? What if a President colluded with an enemy nation specifically to harm his own? What if a President used the position for financial gain? What if a President used their office to silence political enemies? What if a President was negligent to their assigned duties? Impeachment was placed into the constitution as a remedy.


At the same time, the impeachment process was set up like a gauntlet. Otherwise, Congress could easily remove any President for frivolous reasons. The framers used the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," language that was intentionally ambiguous to warrant an impeachment proceeding. If the House of Representatives determines such criminal offenses have been committed by a President they can vote to impeach. Then the President must go on trial before the Senate, where 2/3 of the members must vote guilty to convict him. In such a case the President would be immediately removed. Knowing impeachment would cause political upheaval, it was made into a step by step process, but always an option on the table.


Only two Presidents in American history have faced an impeachment trial and both were acquitted (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). As Sunstein points out, both of those attempts were partisan and legally questionable. President Richard Nixon faced imminent impeachment and most certainly would've been convicted in the Senate (he was told so by his own Party) so he resigned from office.


Later in the book Sunstein takes the reader though some hypothetical situations. Some are open and shut cases such as a President openly acting in accordance with another country to harm America or offering bribes in return for political support. Other cases are not so clear cut and fall down to legal interpretations, such as a President misleading the American people during a war or an administration infested with corrupt officials.


No reference is made to the brewing constitutional crisis, there's no need. Instead, Sunstein encourages readers to do a thought experiment in neutrality. What if a President you loved and agreed with engaged in blatantly illegal activity? What if a President you despised on ideological grounds was being impeached on questionable legal grounds? Finally, put a blindfold on. You are simply presented with the facts. Then decide.


A worthwhile book, written in the tradition of Tom Paine, that also cuts through the media spin. Sunstein concedes impeachment is a serious matter, heightened in an era of fake news. Public officials must be held up to high standards - otherwise democracy will collapse.

[Vincent Li · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty good review of the process and requirements of impeachment. A few stars less for extra fluff that didn't add to the substance but only extends the length of the book (in particular the chapter on originalism, the appended Mueller report executive summaries [there was a useful clarification that Mueller did not indict the president because DOJ regulations did not allow him to do so, so he did not accuse the president of wrong doing, especially since the president would not have the forum of a trial to defend himself], and asides about the author's Revolutionary era house [odd flex but okay]).

While Nixon v. United States strongly suggests or holds that impeachment is a non-justiciable matter (meaning that the courts will not intervene in what it sees is an essentially political process), the author argues that impeachment should not be based on purely partisan feelings towards a president (impeachable offenses is not as Ford said- whatever the House thinks). The Framers wanted to make the executive accountable in order to preserve the republic, but wanted a robust and independent executive not subservient to Congress. Instead, impeachment is reserved for when a president starts to act more like a king than civil servant of the people.

The book seems convincing on one of its themes that it is neither necessary nor sufficient for an act to be criminal to be impeachable. While the Convention debates were sparse (one conversation between Madison and Mason), it seems like the Framers were worried about an executive abusing their office, not just committing crimes. Pre-revolutionary colonial/English practice seemed to confirm that impeachment was used to remove abusive officers, regardless of if those officers technically committed crimes. On the other hand, no one thinks that a president should be impeached for having a parking ticket. The author argues that as a corollary, if the president is covering up a non-impeachable offense, the cover up should be non-impeachable as well (Clinton), unless the cover up actively involves use of the federal apparatus (Nixon).

The book also covers a variety of related topics from the civil immunity of the president (Clinton v. Jones, Nixon v. Fitzgerald), to the 25th amendment (which allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to make the VP acting president in the case of presidential incapability. If the president challenges this assessment, Congress decides with a 2/3 presumption that the president is correct), and if the House as a duty to impeach if it sees impeachable offenses (the author thinks yes). The book also includes a useful summary of past presidential impeachments (Johnson, Clinton), near impeachments (Nixon), and non-presidential impeachments.

The book helps answer or start to answer important questions but includes an annoying amount of fluff. A good quick reference guide, but expect large parts of it to be useless.

[Robert Mckay · Rating 5 out of 5]

For most of my life presidential impeachment was a matter for the history books - Andrew Johnson had been the only president whom the House had impeached, and he died in 1875, nearly 100 years before I was born. Then came the day when the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, on grounds that seemed iffy to me - and I had, and have, no use for Slick Willy and his lying, slimy character and actions. That, I figured, would be the last impeachment for a long time. But I was wrong - the House impeached Donald Trump twice, on grounds that were palpably less sound than those which motivated the Clinton impeachment. And I thought that, while I knew more about impeachment than just about everyone I knew, simply because I've read the US Constitution, it wouldn't hurt to read a book on the subject. I therefore checked a couple out from the library, and this is the one I picked up first to read.

And it's a good book. I question Sunstein's approach to the Constitution - he appears willing to take it to mean what it actually says if that suits his views, or to take it as meaning whatever he wants it to mean, if that suits his views. Not only is the latter approach execrably bad thinking and execrably bad law, but it's utterly inconsistent with taking the document at face value; the two methods are inherently contradictory. Therefore holding both, depending opportunistically on which serves one's ends best, evinces a lack of commitment to any principle other than political expediency - and that is at best a failure to think things through and form foundational principles on which to stand; at worst it's utter self-aggrandizing hypocrisy.

But aside from that flaw which, while great in itself, doesn't play a large part in the book, this is well worth reading. Especially if you've never studied the Constitution you could benefit from reading this book. It appeared before the travesty of the Trump impeachments (if it had come after, I suspect Sunstein would've worded some portions differently), but there are points in it which apply very well to that farce, and show that it was indeed a travesty and a farce, and had no business ever occurring. The writing here is clear and understandable, and even where I disagree with Sunstein, I enjoy his use of English.

[Eileen Sauer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book, together with Laurence Tribe's "To End a Presidency" invaluable. Armed with both these books, it's possible to view unfolding events and the news within a coherent and consistent framework. It will also make clear when people and politicians say things that are incorrect or worse, subtly misleading, in order to fill time during our 24/7 news cycles or generate movement on social media. Sometimes there is a balancing rebuttal against incorrect information, sometimes there is not. Having said that, there is no way I as a layman could ever attempt a more detailed review, realizing that the founders really did an extraordinary thing - threaded a needle, combining seemingly "at odds" pieces into a chimeric structure that creates three coequal branches that balance off one another, enabling the dynamics of thesis and antithesis, which lead to an eventual synthesis. Politicians regularly howl over "partisan politics". The structure created was designed to account for that in an antifragile way, but it is indeed subtle, precariously balanced and ultimately up to "We the People" to become informed citizens, to speak, and to act. It has also become clear to me over time that there are people out there who fight for us to keep this republic, to keep this vision of one person, one vote. My heartfelt gratitude to all of you.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is called the most frequently cited American legal scholar in recent years, he is the former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, he is a professor at Harvard Law School, and, in 1981, his boss asked him, as a young attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice, to write a formal memorandum on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (that provides a mechanism for transfer of power in the event that the President is incapacitated). Ronald Reagan was shot, and incapacitated, one month after he completed the work. Professor Sunstein gives us citizens a review of the historical basis of impeachment, its significance to the founding fathers, a review of the schools of constitutional interpretation, a list of all the federal officers who have been impeached, and several imagined cases of what he believes to be examples where impeachment would be inappropriate, appropriate, or problematic. Some of his examples might have been taken from today’s newspapers. The book is clear, especially considering the complexity of the topic, and pertinent to current considerations.

[Anjan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The President (and others) CAN be impeached for actions that are not normally considered crimes and CANNOT be impeached for actions normally considered crimes. The president can be impeached for maladministration, but not for cheating on his taxes or lying about an affair. Find out the how and why.

Short read. Read the last chapter if the book gets boring, and then go back to fill in the gaps of what you'd like to learn more about.

Fleshes out the constitutional framework for impeachment, provides historical context, and distinguishes impeachment from the 25th amendment.

Has all the charm an entertainment value of a well written law texbook. I appreciated the authors inclusions of a few anecdotes to make the reading more lively.

20 hypothetical fact patterns "questions" and legal analysis of the fact patterns "answers" are provided. It will give you the touch of a taste of what law school is about.

[Nate · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book that maintains a rarely given face of neutrality in terms of a government issue. Sunstein goes through step by step the qualifacations of the impeachment clause, along with the history of it and its related amendments. Could not recommend this more highly. It maintains a readable style throughout but not by withholding any of legal nitty-gritty. He goes through many political situations for impeachment as well as its entire history (quite small as only a couple tens of officials have been seriously considered for impeachment and only 3 presidents). He argues for a very balanced, case by case when necessary dealing with this, as degree is very important in some of the greyer cases for impeachment. Not a mention or even allusion to Trump, again helping his credibility as a neutral expert on the issue, where he describes few knowing or discussing the topic due to lack of jurisprudence. So interesting, so well done.