What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Legal History
Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, Enlarged Edition
The little understood yet volcanic power of impeachment lodged in the Congress is dissected through history by the nation’s leading legal scholar on the subject. Raoul Berger offers authoritative insight into “high crimes and misdemeanors.” He sheds new light on whether impeachment is limited to indictable crimes, on whether there is jurisdiction to impeach for misconduct outside of office, and on whether impeachment must precede indictment. In an addition to the book, Berger finds firm footing in contesting the views of one-time Judge Robert Bork and President Nixon’s lawyer, James St. Clair.
359 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
2 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 4, 2019
Book was given to me by my brother-in-law so I could be more conversant in the legal theory and history surrounding impeachment here in the good ol' USA. Finished it finally because, well, looks like Trump is going to be impeached.
Most interesting part of the book was the discussion around the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." The founders wanted impeachment to be a remedy for more than just crimes, but not totally subject to the whims of political change. This was what they settled on, and I think another phrase in US jurisprudence seems a little apropos. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Rest of the book was about what I'd expect from a law school textbook, meaning it was quite dry and boring. Come for the section on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," skim the rest or read the relevant wikipedia articles.
Most interesting part of the book was the discussion around the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." The founders wanted impeachment to be a remedy for more than just crimes, but not totally subject to the whims of political change. This was what they settled on, and I think another phrase in US jurisprudence seems a little apropos. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Rest of the book was about what I'd expect from a law school textbook, meaning it was quite dry and boring. Come for the section on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," skim the rest or read the relevant wikipedia articles.
Displaying 1 of 1 review