Should the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution Stay Broadly Written and Applied?

Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The United States is no stranger to impeachment proceedings. In 1868, the House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson for violating a recently passed act concerning cabinet officials. In 1998, the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton for perjury and obstructing justice during an investigation. In both cases, the Senate voted against removing the president from office.

Currently, the House of Representatives is conducting an investigation into whether President Trump used the power of the executive to advance his own political interests by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Democratic contender Joe Biden.

The controversy has re-opened the question of what is considered an impeachable offense. Some argue that it is good that the Constitution does not specifically state what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They argue that this broad language is beneficial as it allows the House of Representatives to use its judgment in determining what constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Others argue that the broadness of the impeachment clause makes it difficult to remove a president from office, even if the law has been broken. This side argues that a more specific list of what constitutes a “high crime and misdemeanor” would make it easier to remove a misbehaving executive from office.

So, what do you think? Should the impeachment clause of the Constitution stay broadly written and applied? Students can either argue Yes, the impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied, No, a more specific definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense is needed, or something in between!

Note: Ideal Think the Vote responses include the following:

-Address the question asked in a thoughtful and meaningful manner

-Use cited facts and constitutional arguments when appropriate to support their answers

-Are expressed in cohesive sentences and is free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors

-They address counter-arguments and opposing concerns in a respectful manner

-They organize their answer in a manner that flows logically and reads clearly

Current Standings:
Yes: 79%
No: 21%
  • Halila from Virginia

    The impeachment clause should remain broadly written and applied. Society is constantly changing and we need a clause that will remain flexible and adapt to the changes. Just like how the United States has come a long way from the Articles of Confederation in 1781. The U.S. has added many new laws, amendments, etc. throughout the years. Our country adopted maladministration “which means “basically just for being lousy at your job,” said Jeffrey A. Engel in an interview with The Washington Post. The point is we are constantly developing and we need to maintain a broad clause. This keeps the democracy our society has. This also lets the citizens of the United States choose what they see as morally right and wrong to be in charge of our government, as the years progress.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause should remain broadly written and applied. Society is constantly changing and we need a clause that will remain flexible and ad…

    [read more]
    1
  • Macy from Kentucky

    I believe the Impeachment clause of the constitution should have a set of rules. If the clause is broadly written then who decides what applies to each rule. Also, if the rules are not written clearly then the president could argue that he does not deserve the impeachment, but with clear rules they can point to a specific part of the clause.

    [read less]

    I believe the Impeachment clause of the constitution should have a set of rules. If the clause is broadly written then who decides what applies to eac…

    [read more]
    1
    • Luis from Texas

      I completely agree with this. The impeachment clause needs to be very specific and in depth to even have a reason to impeach Trump. The clause cannot just say that Trump has done many crimes, it needs to say specific things he has done.

      [read less]

      I completely agree with this. The impeachment clause needs to be very specific and in depth to even have a reason to impeach Trump. The clause cannot …

      [read more]
      0
  • Kayla from West Virginia

    I think that the impeachment clause should stay broadly written and applied because it allows the government to impeach for crimes as they see fit. The type and nature of crime is always changing along with society, so it would be unreasonable to set strict guidelines for impeachment. Our leaders may even use the wording of a specified impeachment clause in order to commit a crime while being assured that they will not face consequences for their actions.

    [read less]

    I think that the impeachment clause should stay broadly written and applied because it allows the government to impeach for crimes as they see fit. Th…

    [read more]
    1
  • Danny from Wyoming

    I feel that imposing limitations on the impeachment clause will limit the nations ability to pass articles of impeachment even though the values of our nation changes and the laws with them.

    [read less]

    I feel that imposing limitations on the impeachment clause will limit the nations ability to pass articles of impeachment even though the values of ou…

    [read more]
    1
  • Peydon from Arkansas

    The ambiguity of the clause allows the government the ability to be flexible in terms of grounds for impeachment. The clause transcends time. With a more rigid clause, the House and Senate would be limited to what an elected official, the POTUS primarily, could be impeached for. Everyone, regardless of title, should be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof. POTUS is no exception.

    [read less]

    The ambiguity of the clause allows the government the ability to be flexible in terms of grounds for impeachment. The clause transcends time. With a…

    [read more]
    1
  • Callan from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the impeachment articles should stay broad in order for the act of impeachment to remain an option to use if an official becomes a threat or liability. If the wording on the constitution was not broad it would be difficult for any argument of impeachment to stand and be defended. The broadness of the governmental documents including rules of impeachment allows for a final result of impeachment in multiple situations rather than a specific wrong-doing. The founding fathers allowed for the check or balance of impeachment to prevent tyranny and made the wording broader so there could be a removal of an insufficient leader. The challenge of impeachment deters acts of tyranny and other malpractice of officials that the founding fathers were afraid of, the broadness of the wording allows a wider range of misbehavior from being challenged and is why the articles of impeachment should remain broadly worded much like most of the official government documents.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment articles should stay broad in order for the act of impeachment to remain an option to use if an official becomes a thre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jenna from Pennsylvania

    I believe the impeachment clause should still be kept broad because as the United States evolves, so do ideas, morals, and legal systems. For the impeachment clause to highlight specific crimes or behaviors, it would result in restricting congressmen the power to impeach officials for other actions. Of the many officials impeached, they all had different reasons. Some of these reasons included treason, bribery, extortion, and tax fraud. Even more abstract charges, like unprofessionalism, could be be a valid reason for impeachment. For example, John Pickering was the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire court, was impeached due to absentia (absence of mind) in 1805 because he could not fulfill his duties properly. Therefore, Congress impeaches those who seem unfit to fulfill their position for any appropriate reason.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause should still be kept broad because as the United States evolves, so do ideas, morals, and legal systems. For the impe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Thea from Pennsylvania

    The impeachment clause in the constitution should stay broadly written and open to interpretation. The severity differs depending on the circumstances at hand. If laws and limitations are put, it may not adapt to the time period, America is going to change. Applying it is like a temporary bandaid at the time and will add to the difficulties of impeaching in the future as policy gets interpreted differently. There should be wiggle room for Congress to make the maximum amount of effort to prohibit the offensive activity before directly going to impeachment as an option, it should be the last. Justice is not always clean and easy in every instance. Therefore, interpretation for the possible charges is necessary. What works is having a trial to give everyone a say, as it has always been.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause in the constitution should stay broadly written and open to interpretation. The severity differs depending on the circumstances…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gavin from Pennsylvania

    Having the impeachment laws as undefined as they are is a good thing. It allows for Congress to do what is right. If the president did something wrong, but it wasn’t listed in the constitution then there would be no way to remove him until the next election. The phase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” allows for this and is one of the major checks on the executive branch.

    [read less]

    Having the impeachment laws as undefined as they are is a good thing. It allows for Congress to do what is right. If the president did something wrong…

    [read more]
    0
  • Stella from Pennsylvania

    I think it is right for the House to impeach President Trump because he asked the Ukraine president to put stronger action into taking care of the crime that Biden’s son has committed in Ukraine. The recorded call was released which included Trump threatening Ukraine president that he will end the support for the Ukraine army. Since both Biden and Trump are running for the presidential election in 2020 and Biden is one of the most potent candidates, this action was viewed as Trump using his presidential power to keep Biden in check and raise his possibility of being reelected. Therefore, this action was done for his own political gain by using his presidential power wrongly, violating his oath to keep the constitution.

    [read less]

    I think it is right for the House to impeach President Trump because he asked the Ukraine president to put stronger action into taking care of the cri…

    [read more]
    0
  • Stephanie from Pennsylvania

    Yes, the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. The future is always changing so the broadness of the clause allows adaptability and flexibility. Not only that, the more specific a clause is, the more room for an official to avoid specifically those crimes. The term “civil officers” is rather broad, yet it is understood that any officer of the United States federal government, can be impeached. For example, Thomas Porteous – not the President but rather a District Court Judge – was impeached through that broad phrase. If it were to be specified to just the President, then the amount of officials that escape their crimes would be unruly. Another reason as to why the impeachment clause should remain broad is that the House should decide the meanings of the crimes and where the official lies. If the clause strictly applied to treason and murder, then the whole categories of sexual assault, misdemeanors, tax evasion, perjury, etc. are left out. Thus, a broad clause allows more room for the House to make their judgement as well as making sure the official knows their place and doesn’t fool around.

    [read less]

    Yes, the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. The future is always changing so the broadness of the clause …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kevin from Pennsylvania

    The Impeachment clause should remain broadly written as that allows congress more freedom to do it’s job. There are many loopholes in law. Because of this, many people have gotten away with things that they should not have. Since the context in which you can impeach a president remains broad and encompassing, we are less likely to see anyone able to slip through the cracks. As this is related to current events, the broadness of the impeachment clause allows for more charges to be placed onto the President in this case. If the constitution used Treason as the only impeachable offense, would we have been able to impeach anyone through the years. There may have been some but what about people like Andrew Jackson? He was charged for High crimes and misdemeanors. What is a high crime or a misdemeanor? If we didn’t have these vague terms we could never get people who were in the wrong. These people could also find many loopholes in the system and probably get away from any real punishment. If this had happened I believe that our government would be one that is filled with evil people who only want to use the office for their own good. On the other hand there may be people who were impeached because people took advantage of the broad terms in the constitution. This could be an issue if we had a single force that decided on things but the U.S. is a republic which is able to make decisions with many people. If it really came down to being a partisan issue, the people can then decide upon the fates of those involved in the next election.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment clause should remain broadly written as that allows congress more freedom to do it’s job. There are many loopholes in law. Because of …

    [read more]
    0
  • callie from Pennsylvania

    Yes, the impeachment clause should remain broadly written. Congress, especially the Senate, can work to come to their own definitions of “high crimes”, “misdemeanors”, “treason” and “bribery”. Determining a definition while proceeding with a particular inquiry is important so that the Senate can act and defend their votes accordingly to the president’s behavior and actions. As years go by, having a broad impeachment clause would also help to conform to the time period it’s being utilized within. Imposed limitations would only harm the chances of truly impeaching an individual who acts in a corrupt manner because they would be based on prior incidents and would have to be limited further.

    [read less]

    Yes, the impeachment clause should remain broadly written. Congress, especially the Senate, can work to come to their own definitions of “high crimes”…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Pennsylvania

    A more specific definition of high crimes and misdemeanors would not allow for interpretation or the adaptation of laws overtime. New laws as well as policies are made on the floor of Congress everyday and adaptations to these policies are constantly occurring through committees and sub committees that monitor the enforcement of these policies. If a more specific definition of high crimes and misdemeanors occurs, the amendment of impeachment in the constitution would have to constantly change to account for any of the laws that the President or federal office holder may violate. Let’s take the supreme court overruling of Brown V. Board of Education for example. Let’s flashback to 1955 for a second, say a President acted in a discriminatory manner regarding schooling and created a school that was considered to be against the ruling of Brown V. Board of Education, if, per say, this ruling was not updated within the constitutional amendment of impeachment and discrimination were not considered a high crime or misdemeanor, the president could not be impeached. Many argue that the vagueness of the articles of impeachment make it more difficult to impeach the president, my rebuttal to that stance is that America is built on bureaucracy. It was not meant to be easy to impeach a standing president, the founding fathers were more concerned with eliminating tyranny when writing the constitution and impeachment was only meant to remove a president who was acting tyrannical and abusing his power. This means the process is meant to be long and arduous as to keep from making a tyrannical Congress that is able to remove any president that disagrees with them. Andrew Johnson is a perfect example as he was not agreeable towards Congress and the attempt to impeach ended up failing as the tedious process and broad interpretation allowed for congressmen to many separate sides. In conclusion, the articles of impeachment should continue to be broadly applied and not rewritten in a more specific context.

    [read less]

    A more specific definition of high crimes and misdemeanors would not allow for interpretation or the adaptation of laws overtime. New laws as well as …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jake from Pennsylvania

    I believe that impeachment should stay as a broad statement in the constitution. I think this because with political positions, comes great responsibility. Power can go to a politician and they can become corrupt and can commit crimes that go against what they stand for. This is where impeachment comes in. If a politician becomes unjust, they should be removed from office and replaced by someone who is fairer and would do a better job than the previous holder of said position.

    [read less]

    I believe that impeachment should stay as a broad statement in the constitution. I think this because with political positions, comes great responsibi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Teo from Pennsylvania

    I think the impeachment laws are good as broad as they are because it lets the house interpret different high crimes and misdemeanors. Also if they were very strict then some presidents can get around those laws and actually do bad things for power. I think they should keep the impeachment laws broad for interpretation and a better judgement on of the person is actually guilty or not

    [read less]

    I think the impeachment laws are good as broad as they are because it lets the house interpret different high crimes and misdemeanors. Also if they we…

    [read more]
    0
  • Angie from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the Constitution should continue to be broadly written and applied. If the impeachment laws were too strict, then there wouldn’t be any room for morality. It’s good for the government to have room to interpret what’s right because if the impeachment standards, which were written a while ago, were more constrained, there’s a chance they wouldn’t apply to today’s society because times have changed drastically. The officials we elect and support should be allowed to determine whether something is an impeachable offense.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the Constitution should continue to be broadly written and applied. If the impeachment laws were too strict, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Parker from Pennsylvania

    Yes, the Impeachment clause should stay broad and not become more specific. One reason for this is it gives more interpretation to the government at the time. This is good because the morals and culture were different back when it was written and if it was specific it would not be relevant to other time periods. Also it shall not change because surely our culture will change over time and if its specific to our ideals right now it will be irrelevant in the future. Also if we change it it could be bias to certain groups of people. Unlike back then we are very diverse with many religions and cultures in our country. And because we are so diverse it would be bad if it was bias to a certain group.

    [read less]

    Yes, the Impeachment clause should stay broad and not become more specific. One reason for this is it gives more interpretation to the government at t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Eric from Pennsylvania

    I think that the broad impeachment laws should stay. The house and the senate should get to decide whether or not a high crime or misdemeanor is impeachment worthy, also if a president doesn’t commit a crime, he or she can still be removed under the current laws. I believe that this is the right policy because if a president commits a high crime or misdemeanor and the consequences of this high crime or misdemeanor are very minimal, then congress will determine that removal should not take place. Another point is that the values of the American people change over time and there should not be a law set in stone that a civil officer must be removed if x happens because that law might become outdated. It should be up to congress to decide if impeachment is the right course of action for the specific case.

    [read less]

    I think that the broad impeachment laws should stay. The house and the senate should get to decide whether or not a high crime or misdemeanor is impea…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Pennsylvania

    I believe the nonspecific impeachment clause should remain broad so each generation can interpret it how they seem fit. With each generation and different politicians that cycle through come new problems that need to be solved. If it is too specific then there could be some cases where the “solution” wouldn’t apply to certain situations. Also the ambiguity of the clause requires people to go into deep banter about the question at hand. It requires them to gather more concrete evidence to prove their point is the absolute truth. It it was more specific, then i believe people could be more easily prosecuted and impeached.

    [read less]

    I believe the nonspecific impeachment clause should remain broad so each generation can interpret it how they seem fit. With each generation and diffe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Pennsylvania

    I think that the impeachment clause of the constitution should be broadly written and applied. Some people may argue that it is difficult to remove a president from office with these broad terms, but this language allows the House of Representatives to define for themselves what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor” based on the ever changing world around us. Besides the two specified crimes in the impeachment clause, I believe that Gerald Ford was right when he said, “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” (Explainer: Impeachment depends on ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ – what are they?) Because if the guidelines were stricter, there could very much be an offense that is worth impeachment but does not satisfy the clause and therefore would go unnoticed. Even the founding fathers left the clause to be interpreted broadly saying that if the offense is being insufficient or ineffective then that is in the eye of the beholder, who in this case is the House of Representatives. (How the founding fathers saw impeachment and ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’) In the current Trump impeachment situation, the House of Representatives has multiple options of what they could charge Donald Trump with for example, obstruction of justice and congressional investigations, abuse of foreign policy authorities, etc. With the broad context in place the House of Representatives can still differentiate between what they consider to be a high crime or misdemeanor based on any current situation.

    [read less]

    I think that the impeachment clause of the constitution should be broadly written and applied. Some people may argue that it is difficult to remove a …

    [read more]
    0
  • Caitlin from Pennsylvania

    I think it should stay broadly written and applied. Federal employees may do things that aren’t acceptable and be totally unexpected. if you make stricter impeachment laws it may be harder to get them impeached. if you keep the laws more loosely applied it comes down to those the people elect to decide what is best, and typically our elected congress members vote for what the people want since that is what will get them re-elected. making stricter laws just makes things more complicated then they need to be

    [read less]

    I think it should stay broadly written and applied. Federal employees may do things that aren’t acceptable and be totally unexpected. if you make stri…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written because it allows us to interpret it in any way needed; for example, if the constitution was revised and stated certain misconducts that are fit to be “high crimes and misdemeanors,” one could so easily get away with what is not included. It is almost impossible to list every crime that one commit in the constitution so the broadness of the clause allows for our own interpretations. The clause was intentionally written broadly because it includes every type of crime; therefore, nothing is “easy” to get away with. One could argue that the broadness of the clause could potentially allow someone to impeachment someone just because of person preference; however, the system of checks and balances ensures that power that does not concentrate in a single area prohibiting impeachment on false terms to occur.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written because it allows us to interpret it in any way needed; for exam…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kieran from Pennsylvania

    The wording of the impeachment clause should remain ambiguous because that is consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The creators of the Constitution intended for it to be flexible and able to be interpreted differently. This is an important quality of the Constitution because it allows Congress to adjust its standards as time goes on. In the case of the impeachment clause, the broad language makes it so Congress can interpret the charges for itself and deliberate accordingly depending on the context of the charges and the context of the world. Furthermore, impeachment is nothing more than a trial, and in any other trial, there is a case for arguing innocence or guilt: it is not black and white, a grey area exists. Therefore, the language in the impeachment clause should remain broad in keeping consistent with the theme of law and the Constitution.

    [read less]

    The wording of the impeachment clause should remain ambiguous because that is consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The creators of the Cons…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the impeachment clause should stay broad. The country has changed so much since the Constitution was drafted and it will continue to do so. The broadness of the impeachment clause allows for flexibility, and leaves the power to Congress in deciding what is an impeachable offense and it gives Congress the authority to decide for itself whether the alleged crimes qualify as “treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors.” While some may argue that the broadness makes it more difficult to impeach, I believe that if it were any more specific it would be harder to impeach because the criteria would be too specific. The current broadness of the clause should be a sign that impeachment should only be reserved for the worst crimes and offenses, and the low number of 22 officials who have been impeached should be a testament to this. Therefore, the impeachment clause should continue to be broad and left up to interpretation by Congress.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment clause should stay broad. The country has changed so much since the Constitution was drafted and it will continue to do…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jenna from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the situation currently warrants the president’s impeachment. While the evidence might not be all there yet, with more time I think the House will be able to make the accusations into real charges. While the definition/reach of impeachment is vague in the Constitution, today we are seeing many parallels to the Nixon impeachment, which could have easily set a precedent in the mind of the American people. Obstruction of justice is included in the Mueller Report, and it identifies what has happened as what Congress qualifies as impeachable offenses. This has parallels to the Clinton impeachment, where one of the charges against him was obstruction of justice. President Trump also used his political power to cause investigation into his political opponents, and this is against the second article of impeachment, which accused Nixon of “repeatedly engaging in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens”. These are only a few of the impeachable offenses that the House could choose to adopt in the impeachment case, and many of them could be proven in the trial.

    [read less]

    I believe that the situation currently warrants the president’s impeachment. While the evidence might not be all there yet, with more time I think the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cooper from North Carolina

    The Impeachment Clause should stay broad. It is important for the legislature to be able to investigate the president. Though this issue is often politicized, which is a misuse of this power because it wastes the time of the federal government when they could be passing laws. That being said, if there is a legitimate concern then the clause should for sure stay broadly written. Impeachment does not mean removal from office, but rather just the formal investigation and trial. The president should be held to the highest of standards, which means that they shouldn’t be given much room to slip up legally. I would even argue that the impeachment clause should be expanded and made easier to apply due to the partisanship surrounding impeachment today. Impeachment should 100% be used if there is ANY concern on the President breaking laws. Along with being President comes the responsibility of being held to the highest standard and having to display great character.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment Clause should stay broad. It is important for the legislature to be able to investigate the president. Though this issue is often poli…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brady from Illinois

    The Impeachment Clause of the Constitution has been very flexible ever since Andrew Johnson was impeached in the 1860s. He was impeached by the Radical Republicans for violating the Tenure of Office Act, a law that said the Senate had to approve the removal of a cabinet member. He removed his Secretary of War without the consent of the Senate, and he was impeached and almost removed from office. This was a great example of the broadness of the Impeachment Clause (which is currently very broad) because the Constitution didn’t specifically say that if a president violated a (ridiculous) law that it was grounds for impeachment, but it gave the Senate the flexibility to run impeachment proceedings anyway. The flexibility of the Impeachment Clause is that it doesn’t specifically state what a presidential “high crime or misdemeanor” is and because of that, if a situation arose where it seemed the president was being unlawful, there would be no Constitutional clause telling Congress they couldn’t impeach the president for that. Also, if specific crimes were pointed out, the sitting president could probably find a way to avoid the exact definition of one of those crimes and still commit them. It might be a little bit imperfect the way it is, but it is definitely better than being very specific.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment Clause of the Constitution has been very flexible ever since Andrew Johnson was impeached in the 1860s. He was impeached by the Radica…

    [read more]
    0
  • Bugs from Texas

    I believe that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied, conserving it for the future generations because it doesn’t seem to have many fatal flaws included, preventing the current President whose sitting in the Oval Office from being impeached by the majority vote or by Congress due to misleading information that had never actually occurred, impeachment should only be inferred as the final verdict only when proven with solid evidence.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied, conserving it for the future generations because it…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hannah from Texas

    Yes, I believe that the impeachment clause should have set of specific and in depth rules to follow. The clause cannot just say that trump ,or any other president to come, that has done many crimes. It need to say what, why, how, and when they did the crime. Yes, everyone has to follow the law but also the law says “innocent until proven guilty”

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe that the impeachment clause should have set of specific and in depth rules to follow. The clause cannot just say that trump ,or any o…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from Texas

    i say that it should remain abroad because if we didn’t have a clause like that, we wouldn’t have anything to keep the president from doing anything wrong.

    0
  • Serenity from Texas

    Donald Trump needs to be impeached because he has broken trust of the people of the United States.

    0
  • Michael from Texas

    I think it should be changed because the power should be split for all of us

    0
  • vidya from Texas

    i believe the impeachment should stay broad as it lets the people feel as if they have a say in the country they live in. Also against things that do violate the law

    0
  • Harmony from Texas

    Yes, I believe the definitions should stay broad. With broad definitions on which applies as a high crime or misdemeanor more acts for crime may be able be identified. If there were stricter definitions people may be able to find their way around, so that their act doesn’t match that definition and they can’t be punished.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe the definitions should stay broad. With broad definitions on which applies as a high crime or misdemeanor more acts for crime may be ab…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from Texas

    It should remain broad. Government leaders and politicians may try to find loopholes and come up successful if the laws of impeachment were more specific. If the laws of impeachment deny politicians from doing a certain crime, immoral act, or lying to the public, governments can just do another crime and completely avoid that law. A broad set of regulations against impeachment help combat against loopholes and corruption.

    [read less]

    It should remain broad. Government leaders and politicians may try to find loopholes and come up successful if the laws of impeachment were more speci…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chase from Texas

    Changing the constitution would put our republic, NOT DEMOCRACY, at stake.

    0
  • Deshun from Texas

    Making the writing more specific can cause a more difficult impeaching process as opposed to leaving the writing broad and non-specific.

    0
  • Trevour from Texas

    I believe that the constitution should be broad because it can be applied so many ways if it is broad.

    0
  • Samantha from South Carolina

    Trump tried to build a wall that would keep people out. those people could have families they want a better life for. but Trump probably changed their minds

    0
  • Jesus from Texas

    I believe the impeachment clause of the constitution should have more rules.Because the rules are to vague, and the president does not even get in trouble .

    0
  • Garman from Texas

    I believe that for the nation to remain truly free and accepting of all viewpoint here in the United States, we need a constitution that can be viewed and interpreted many different ways. Therefore, the Impeachment clause should remain broad as it can apply to more situations and allow the people to decide whether a political officer has committed actions that are truly worth of being removed from their position. I agree that having stricter impeachment laws would make it easier to judge these actions, however there will always be a case that manages a loophole through the laws and by having a more broad and less specific constitution, it minimizes the loopholes that officials can take in order to get out of controversy.

    [read less]

    I believe that for the nation to remain truly free and accepting of all viewpoint here in the United States, we need a constitution that can be viewe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Victor from Texas

    I say that it should stay broad and become even broader. Presidents have high power and can commit many crimes. Murder, perjury, treason, tax fraud, sexual assault, drug movement, and etc. So since these high power presidents can have people do jobs for them. So I would say yes, it should stay broader and stay written.

    [read less]

    I say that it should stay broad and become even broader. Presidents have high power and can commit many crimes. Murder, perjury, treason, tax fraud, s…

    [read more]
    0
  • alex from Texas

    I think that the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it helps us be able to impeach the president for a large selection of crimes. If we try to narrow the selection, we could possibly miss a crime that a president commits in the future, and we wouldn’t be able to impeach them for it because it’s not in the impeachment clause.

    [read less]

    I think that the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it helps us be able to impeach the president for a large selection of crimes. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Chloe from North Carolina

    If we make it more specific then we will lose our voice and it will be harder to impeach the President even if he/she is doing wrong. I say keep it broad and let the government do their job to decide what is too far. If we make these more strict then the Presidents will be able to get away with anything and the government will have too much power. Do not give up our voice just because you like a certain President and want him/ her to stay in office! Do what is good for America!

    [read less]

    If we make it more specific then we will lose our voice and it will be harder to impeach the President even if he/she is doing wrong. I say keep it br…

    [read more]
    0
  • Renee from North Carolina

    Although adding limitations and narrowing down what does and does not qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors” could potentially help us impeach presidents who violate them in the near future, it is not taking into account the fact that in future generations things could and most likely will be very different than they are now. A law that is instated now that details on a high crime or misdemeanor could be completely revoked later on in American history. There could be some benefits to adding limitations, but with the guarantee that America is going to change with future generations, the limitations could cause more damage in the future than it would benefit us in the here and now.

    [read less]

    Although adding limitations and narrowing down what does and does not qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors” could potentially help us impeach pres…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tyler from Oregon

    It should be the peoples decision to who is elected and if the person is being bad get rid of them.

    0
  • Caleb from Virginia

    Yes I do believe that the impeachment clause should stay broad. If a government official is not acting for the good of the common people, then they are acting for the benefit of themselves. This sort of thinking is also the established basis for tyranny, which democracies put in the power of the people to put an end to and elect new officials.

    [read less]

    Yes I do believe that the impeachment clause should stay broad. If a government official is not acting for the good of the common people, then they a…

    [read more]
    0
  • lauryn from West Virginia

    If we keep the impeachment clause more general, it gives both the House of Representatives and the Senate more room for them to do what’s right for the country. It allows for their judgement to be of more value as it takes into account the seriousness of the misdemeanor.

    [read less]

    If we keep the impeachment clause more general, it gives both the House of Representatives and the Senate more room for them to do what’s right for th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isabella from Montana

    I think that the Constitution should clearly state how impeachment works because when the authorities are questioned, there is evidence.

    0
    • Stace from Oregon

      yes it should but I dont want to change the constitution

      0
  • Tyrel from Montana

    We shouldn’t change it because the constitution doesn’t give us that right.

    0
  • Timothy from Montana

    I believe that it should stay broadly written because if it is narrowed, it would be possible to get away with somethings, simply because it’s not in the Constitution.

    0
  • Ethan from West Virginia

    The impeachment clause needs to stay the same. This clause should be treated like the necessary and proper clause and the 9th Amendment. You can’t list every single crime possible in this clause; you could leave one out. If the clause is changed to distinct crimes against the nation, it’s possible an individual could get off the hook for doing a certain crime. The clause doesn’t need to change; that’s why the House interprets the Constitution and votes on impeachment.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause needs to stay the same. This clause should be treated like the necessary and proper clause and the 9th Amendment. You can’t lis…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sara from Delaware

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it leaves no room for mistake. It covers almost every area of wrong and provides officials with a general code of conduct for their actions. It also provides equal punishments no matter who the officer is or what position they hold.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it leaves no room for mistake. It covers almost every area of wrong and provides …

    [read more]
    0
  • Osmond from Virginia

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it allows the impeachment method to be investigated and understood in many ways. Instead of one specific way to view the rights and wrongs. Having a broad clause allows the impeachment method to be applied and interpreted to many circumstances

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay broadly written because it allows the impeachment method to be investigated and understood in many ways. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Chase from Virginia

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay exactly how it is written, with the U.S. Government to decide what is considered “High crimes and misdemeanors.” The reason is that the U.S. has over the years already stated what high crimes and misdemeanors consist of over the years. We cannot have a president that breaks the law because that means he is taking advantage of his powers not for the good of the country, but for himself. However, I believe if they are convicted, each house of congress must vote about the idea, and a more thorough investigation must occur for a trial, not just a trial of possible illegal actions. The problem that Democrats are having with president trump is that they do not have enough evidence just yet to make a decision to start the trial. If they had substantial evidence, the trial would advance a bit faster, but at the moment there is none. I am not sure if he really tried to spy on Joe Biden, but I believe all presidents if persecuted, should not have any advantage over each other if they broke the law.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay exactly how it is written, with the U.S. Government to decide what is considered “High crimes and misdeme…

    [read more]
    0
  • Iolar from Oregon

    I believe the impeachment clause of the constitution is perfectly sufficient. The specification, in Article two Section four of the Constitution, of treason and bribery gives some reference of the scale of the crimes one should be impeached for. That is then followed by, “or any other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” which keeps the specifications flexible for any time period. If we were to put in any exact specifications for impeachment and take out this flexibility that the Constitution allows, and could allow for a president to get away with any crimes.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause of the constitution is perfectly sufficient. The specification, in Article two Section four of the Constitution, of t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Esmeralda from Oregon

    The Constitution is supposed to be vague and open to interpretation. By not making it more specific it gives out more insight into things that could be considered wrong. If we make it more specific we are putting a limit to what is being considered unconstitutional and if someone does something that should not be allowed, having given a limit, we would not be able to take action and do something against it. Having a broadly interpretation gives an opportunity for different points of views and be applied to anyone instead of specific people as well.

    [read less]

    The Constitution is supposed to be vague and open to interpretation. By not making it more specific it gives out more insight into things that could b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Oregon

    The impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written. The word treason is used so that future generations can interpret it accordingly to the times. What is considered treason now might not be considered treason in the future. If the Framers were to set up a specific list of things that were considered treason in their time, then future generations would have to continually add to that list to accommodate changing times. Concepts like climate change were not in the heads of the Framers when they created this clause. The beauty of the constitution is its vagueness; the vagueness allows for future interpretation.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written. The word treason is used so that future generations can interpret it according…

    [read more]
    0
  • Martin from Oregon

    In order to account for unprecedented cases of injustice, it is important to maintain a flexible Constitutional definition regarding impeachment. Though many argue that this vague definition of “high crimes and misdemeanor” may lead to unreasonable removals from offices. However, by using a pragmatic view, we can adjust and adapt to the contemporary problems faced by society. This approach also aligns itself with the remaining methods of interpretation as it reflects the original Framer’s beliefs, the text of the Constitution, and allows the impeachment process to reflect our previous beliefs.

    [read less]

    In order to account for unprecedented cases of injustice, it is important to maintain a flexible Constitutional definition regarding impeachment. Thou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jamel from Oregon

    It’s important that we keep the constitution vague for future generations to interpret. If we begin to specify crimes that we consider impeachment worthy there could be crimes that we didn’t account for in future generations, it would be irresponsible to label crimes. In short keeping it vague makes it flexible while specifying it would make it stiff, and leave room for possible loopholes.

    [read less]

    It’s important that we keep the constitution vague for future generations to interpret. If we begin to specify crimes that we consider impeachment wor…

    [read more]
    0
  • maggie from Kentucky

    I believe that the impeachment clause should stay somewhat broad but also have a list of actions that will lead to impeachment for the nation to know. Times and situations change constantly, so much so that a strict list will not always work in certain situations. Lawyers will always be able to find loopholes if we were to have a strict and detailed list of criminal offenses. All the list would do is be able to impeach the president immediately. If there is a serious enough reason to impeach an offical then the prosecutors will be able to defend the United States against the president.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment clause should stay somewhat broad but also have a list of actions that will lead to impeachment for the nation to know….

    [read more]
    0
  • Jake from Kentucky

    The impeachment process should stay vague, because it allows much more freedom on when and impeachment process should begin. If it were to be more specific, it could place the country in a position where a future president who deserves to be impeached for some crime isn’t, because it is not strictly stated. Another issue with specifying impeachment rules is that it brings up a dilemma of when it stops, because it quickly becomes a slippery slope of those in power deciding how to be taken out of power. There are of course positives that could come from this, such as less failed impeachment attempts, and more definite successful impeachment attempts, but the negatives, I believe, greatly outweigh the positives.

    [read less]

    The impeachment process should stay vague, because it allows much more freedom on when and impeachment process should begin. If it were to be more spe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joseph from Kentucky

    Impeachment can become necessary for many different reasons. There is no all-encompassing definition that can be clearly stated. Not one that would properly serve our nation at least. When we see that our leader is untrustworthy and potentially dangerous we must act. This means that we have the ability to impeach even if the President finds loopholes or hides evidence.

    [read less]

    Impeachment can become necessary for many different reasons. There is no all-encompassing definition that can be clearly stated. Not one that would pr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maria from Kentucky

    I think the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. If we put limits on impeachment and Article II section 4, it will also have limits on what the nation has the ability to pass because of it. It can limit the ability of our nation can have for the good and future of the nation. The Constitution was made to not be specifically because they didn’t want to limit it.

    [read less]

    I think the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. If we put limits on impeachment and Article II section 4, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Drew from Kentucky

    I believe it should stay broadly written because if it encompasses a lot of different reasons for the impeachment process. If it is clearly stated there could be a new issue or action brought into question that cannot be addressed because of the impeachment process. It was also written that way and there have been relatively no issues since it was created which is why it does not make sense to change it. It also gives a broader area with the word “misdemeanor” and that puts more of a check on politicians to stay on the right side of the law.

    [read less]

    I believe it should stay broadly written because if it encompasses a lot of different reasons for the impeachment process. If it is clearly stated the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maia from Kentucky

    I think that the broadness of the impeachment clause is a good thing because it is less likely that someone will find a loophole. People live to find a way to break the rules, and if there are more specific rules for impeachment then that would just make it easier for people to commit and get away with the crimes. The way I see it, the more specific the impeachment offenses are, the closer an official can get to committing said offense, but having it not count because of the fine print.

    [read less]

    I think that the broadness of the impeachment clause is a good thing because it is less likely that someone will find a loophole. People live to find …

    [read more]
    0
  • Aaron from Kentucky

    I believe the impeachment clause the way it is written allows Congress to interpret each impeachment case based on the actions of the elected official based on what is acceptable during that time period. Every elected official should be subject to impeachment based on the legality of their actions regardless of position and each case should be tried based on the culture and thinking of the time period.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause the way it is written allows Congress to interpret each impeachment case based on the actions of the elected official…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brady from Kentucky

    The Impeachment clause should stay broad because it ensures that impeachment is not a widely used issue. If a president truly commits a crime, then the House of Representatives and Senate should be agreeing on Impeachment. This should be the same for civil offices as well since public officers should refrain from crime as stated in the Impeachment clause. Additionally, a broad clause allows for Impeachment to be interpreted for the time. Ultimately, Impeachment should be reserved for the most serious of cases.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment clause should stay broad because it ensures that impeachment is not a widely used issue. If a president truly commits a crime, then th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Kentucky

    The Impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied. The broadness of the impeachment clause allows for the house of representatives to interpret the President’s actions for the time they live in. The morals and values that the presidents were judged by in the 1800s are different from the ones we judge our presidents today. Adiditoannly, these values will change a century from now. The broad impeachment clause allows for representatives to determine what really constitutes as being grave enough to merit impeachment. Furthermore, the broadness of the clause allows for proper debate and discussion surrounding the impeachment investigation, which helps to calm the extremely political and partisan attitudes that come with impeachment investigations.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied. The broadness of the impeachment clause allows for the house of re…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from Kentucky

    I think the impeachment clause should be broadly written. This way any president who is involved in any kind of suspicious activity can be impeached. Anything the people of the house and senate see as criminal can be a reason for impeachment. It also includes a wider variety of misdemeanors to be included for impeachment. This keeps the president from participating in any illegal activity.

    [read less]

    I think the impeachment clause should be broadly written. This way any president who is involved in any kind of suspicious activity can be impeached. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brady from Kentucky

    This should stay the way it is, it allows for the house and senate to use their judgment. Every situation is different, and it is just like a court case, yes there are set guidelines, but it is ultimately up to the jury to decide the fate of the individual/individuals. Every situation is different, and has different things leading up to it ad playing into it, so there shouldn’t be one set decision, because it cannot possibly cover every scenario. Therefore it is for the best that it the guidelines are loose because it leads to people being able to use their judgement and reason.

    [read less]

    This should stay the way it is, it allows for the house and senate to use their judgment. Every situation is different, and it is just like a court ca…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aaron from Kentucky

    I think it should stay broad because there can be many, many things that can qualify as an impeachable act. Too many to the point of not knowing how to categorize or too much categorization. If there is to be an explanation then it should only be a handful of categories.

    [read less]

    I think it should stay broad because there can be many, many things that can qualify as an impeachable act. Too many to the point of not knowing how t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Morgan from Kentucky

    I feel that the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied because imposing some limitations will limit the nation’s ability to make decisions for the people. If there are more limitations, then the county will always be the same and there will be less changes. Article Two of the Constitution talks about the executive branch which enforces these certain rules and regulations. People will always have their own opinions on things and most people just want to impeach because they do not like the president. This can affect people my age because we want to be able to have a say in who leads our country and government.

    [read less]

    I feel that the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied because imposing some limitations will limit the nation…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kate from Kentucky

    I believe the impeachment clause of the constitution should remain broad so that many underhanded and unfair actions fall under the title of “impeachable offense”. The president plays a crucial role in our society and it’s vitally important to remove corrupt leaders. If strict guidelines are given to the clause certain circumstances may be overlooked and it won’t be able to easily address new issues and dangers. In short, the flexible nature of the clause helps it remain lasting and relevant.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause of the constitution should remain broad so that many underhanded and unfair actions fall under the title of “impeacha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madison from Arkansas

    The reason why the United States Constitution is referred to as a “living document,” and is still used today is due, in part, to its broadness and the capability of different interpretations. The Supreme Court has always been the body that has decided what each clause and section exactly means and how they apply to cases, setting precedents and enforcing the Constitution. Without these interpretations throughout the years- like in Marbury V. Madison or McCulloch V. Maryland- the Constitution would actually have no power; The only thing that makes the words written on paper law is the courts’ interpretation and decision on the meaning. Therefore, further defining and delving deeper into the specifics of the Impeachment Clause will ultimately prove to be a detriment to the future of American legislation. When a clause is defined and given concrete definition, the ability to apply it to other cases or instances is lost, and it will subsequently become moot in regards to American society. In order to ensure that the American bicameral legislature has something to fall back on when their seated executive abuses their powers is to continue to allow the Impeachment Clause to be broadly written and applied.

    [read less]

    The reason why the United States Constitution is referred to as a “living document,” and is still used today is due, in part, to its broadness and the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from Kentucky

    Yes, Trump is a disease infecting our nation and must be purged: he disgraces the principles behind the13th amendment by using racism to persuade voters to his side, he abuses his executive powers to replace people in office who do not align with him such as James Comey and Marie Yovanovitch, he prioritizes his own business over the welfare of individual working people via the Trump Tax Reform Plan, he fails to pay taxes needed for schools and public infrastructure, he abuses his businesses workers by cheating them out of benefits and appropriate compensation, he promises to misuse federal funds towards building a “Wall” between the US and Mexico, and he commits immoral acts frowned upon by the good faith expected by constitution such as having “Golden Showers” and inappropriately grabbing Stormy Daniels.

    [read less]

    Yes, Trump is a disease infecting our nation and must be purged: he disgraces the principles behind the13th amendment by using racism to persuade vote…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Kentucky

    Yes, the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. There is no need for a more specific offense needed because every impeachment case will likely have a different offense. A more specific definition of an impeachable offense will leave out other offenses of which do not fit the new description. However, having a more general rule allows the House to determine themselves if the act is offensive to the Constitution. Therefore, the impeachment clause works and should be left the way it is.

    [read less]

    Yes, the impeachment clause of the constitution should stay broadly written and applied. There is no need for a more specific offense needed because e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kyle from Kentucky

    I think the impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied. Because if you make it more specific it will be easier to get away with shading things. If the president does something wrong or breaks an act or law he or she should get punished accordingly. If that includes them being impeached then so be it. If it is a more specific definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense there could and would be ways around the rules without technically breaking them. If the president has to stop and think if his action is going to fall under the definition of an impeachable offense he shouldn’t do it anyway. So it should stay the same to keep any shading business out of office.

    [read less]

    I think the impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied. Because if you make it more specific it will be easier to …

    [read more]
    0
  • Logan from Kentucky

    This Clause has withstood over forty presidencies in our nation, and led to any cause for alarm. To attempt to narrow down the concepts within the Impeachment Clause would be to say that specific behaviors and actions will be targeted, but other will receive no punishment. With this mindset our elected officials may obtain the opportunity to get away with terrible acts against our Nation without the fear of any real consequence. With a broadly written Clause such as the current one, we the people retain our rights to attempt to push officials who we believe have expressed ill intent out of office without the worry of retribution.

    [read less]

    This Clause has withstood over forty presidencies in our nation, and led to any cause for alarm. To attempt to narrow down the concepts within the Imp…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joslyn from Kentucky

    I think that it should stay broadly applied because impeachment should be based off of the clause but directed by the people’s judgment and discernment. If it were modified to be more specific it leaves less room for the people to have a voice over specific conditions

    [read less]

    I think that it should stay broadly applied because impeachment should be based off of the clause but directed by the people’s judgment and discernm…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from Kentucky

    The broad language of what constitutes an impeachable offense allows the Constitution to stay relevant, even today. The constitution is over 200 years old and over time the things that people value and consider morally right or wrong in the political world changes. Many of the founding presidents had slaves, but today that could never stand and would immediately cause many issues and problems, including impeachment. The technology that many people have available to them now greatly differs from the past, these new developments allow for changes in how the world can see and interpret things. If people start to institute a specific list of what is considered a “high crime and misdemeanor”, then it may work for some time, but will eventually become inapplicable to the future. With the world constantly evolving and changing having a gray area allows the constitution to withstand the test of time despite the issues that may appear in the future.

    [read less]

    The broad language of what constitutes an impeachable offense allows the Constitution to stay relevant, even today. The constitution is over 200 years…

    [read more]
    0
  • Garrett from Kentucky

    The impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied because some situations need adaptability. If the impeachment clause stays broad, the house is able to interpret the crime of the executive office in a way that allows for a broader view. It would allow for the house to keep the people in mind when making their decision on impeachment.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written and applied because some situations need adaptability. If the impeachment claus…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lily from Kentucky

    The Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written. It allows the government to apply the definitions stated in the clause to what is going on at the time of the decision to impeach. Times change as our country grows older, which means that the clause should stay open-ended so it is easier to impeach. With limitations on the definition, it will be harder for the people to go against a potentially tyrant leader.

    [read less]

    The Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written. It allows the government to apply the definitions stated in the clause to what…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Kentucky

    I believe that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written because our world is constantly changing and evolving. Our founding fathers had no idea about the kinds of technology and resources we possess today. However, with this new technology comes a higher risk for misdemeanors. The first man landed on the moon just 50 short years ago, and it is incredible to witness how far the United States has come. Just like our founding fathers, we are unaware of all the technological advances that will come to the United States 200, 100, or even just 20 years from now. Therefore, it is best to leave the Impeachment Clause open to the interpretation and judgment of the House of Representatives as our world continues to evolve.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should stay broadly written because our world is constantly changing and evolving. Our found…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amber from Kentucky

    Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official which also includes the President, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. What I am saying is that we should keep the Impeachment Clause because we need to keep America safe from any dangers that may influence the President and our nation.

    [read less]

    Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws….

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Kentucky

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay aboardly as it is because the House of Representatives can judge based on the offensive of the person. If we had a strict clause then if someone did something that was not against the clause but still wrong then no one could do anything about it. We should stick to an aboard clause also because then everyone can have a say in what happens to the person with the offense.

    [read less]

    I believe the impeachment clause should stay aboardly as it is because the House of Representatives can judge based on the offensive of the person. I…

    [read more]
    0
  • Annalie from Kansas

    I think the impeachment clause should not be changed, because as times change, crimes can change. If the clause enumerates the specific crimes that are impeachable offenses, limits are imposed upon the House of Representatives when an impeachment case comes up. In the case that an offense would be put forth to be added to the list of impeachable offenses, there will be huge debate and uproar each time. In addition, every variation of the offense must be detailed, or else the point will be made that because the president hasn’t exactly followed the offense that is laid out, he or she has not committed that crime and therefore should not be impeached. However, keeping the clause’s terms more open and vague allows the House to bypass this debate about whether the offense should be considered an impeachable crime, which allows the whole process to be more efficient and fair as the House’s focus is not being diverted to the question about whether the offense is impeachable, but rather whether the president should be impeached, which is the real question.

    [read less]

    I think the impeachment clause should not be changed, because as times change, crimes can change. If the clause enumerates the specific crimes that ar…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    I think this needs to be changed because some of us do not agree with this either. We all need to have a say in this process and not just House. We all have different views of how things should be done. I am in the middle, it is okay either way. The House knows what’s best, but it would be nice for us to have a say too.

    [read less]

    I think this needs to be changed because some of us do not agree with this either. We all need to have a say in this process and not just House. We al…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from Kentucky

    Yes, this should stay in place. Although there may be exceptions, things such as bribery and treason are not acceptable, especially is such a high rank of government. This could lead to mistrust of the leader from the people. If someone commits one of these actions and gets away with it, they may think that they can get away with it again which could lead to bigger problems.

    [read less]

    Yes, this should stay in place. Although there may be exceptions, things such as bribery and treason are not acceptable, especially is such a high ran…

    [read more]
    0
  • Paul from California

    Should be changed so that it needs a vote by the American people, an a movement initiated by the House of Reps (given a 2/3 vote)

    0
  • Xavier from Arkansas

    Yes because in Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president’s powers and responsibilities.

    [read less]

    Yes because in Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforce…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Pennsylvania

    I do believe the constitution should make clear what are the grounds of impeachment. The first reason is due to the differences in the way the world works from the 18th century to the 21st century. How could we expect people living in the 18th century to predict how information and capital flows in the modern world. It is much more complicated and much easier to commit acts that undermine the united states government. What constitutes as a high crime is much different today then it was 250 years ago, so our language should reflect this, laying out what are impeachable acts. My 2nd reason is it leaves justice to be a matter of opinion rather then fact. Most crime has a very concrete legal definition, but high crime does not. This leaves arguing about what is and is not high crime into what should be a judgement of innocence or guilt. With more solid grounds of impeachment, we could decide what is or is not impeachable using concrete facts rather then opinion.

    [read less]

    I do believe the constitution should make clear what are the grounds of impeachment. The first reason is due to the differences in the way the world w…

    [read more]
    0
  • James from Pennsylvania

    The impeachment clause should not stay broad as it allows for people to weasel their way out of an impeachment by claiming that they do not determine a crime to be a “high crime.” This is a clear obstruction of the essence of impeachment as it allows for who deserved impeachment to be an opinion, not a fact. It makes it easy for senators to use their perception of a high crime as an excuse to not impeach, allowing for senators to only vote on partisan lines. This is displayed in cases such as the impeachment of Bill Clinton, where the votes were almost completely partisan. If what makes a high crime was to be clearly defined, these partisan votes would be stopped as it would now just be a simple, objective question of did the president do a, b, and c, not did he do these actions and are these actions actually an impeachable offense. This will also help aid the cynicism around impeachment procedures, such as this one with Trump, as people will not be discouraged from investigating now that they know that the Senate will not just vote on party lines, as they likely will in this impeachment procedure should it reach the Senate. Overall, the current system of impeachment is too loosely defined and prevents objective decisions, allowing instead for partisan decisions that prevent any impeachment whatsoever.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause should not stay broad as it allows for people to weasel their way out of an impeachment by claiming that they do not determine …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Pennsylvania

    I do not think that the impeachment clause should remain broadly written and applied. Leaving the impeachment clause so broad allows for the House of Representatives and Senate to interpret this clause however they please. Leaving the impeachment clause so broad allows for different courses of action. For example, there could be different outcomes to an impeachment depending on which party has control of the House and Senate. Treason, which is when a person “goes to war against the United States or gives ‘aid or comfort’ to an enemy,” is the only impeachment crime that is specifically defined (Wolfe). The other crimes, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanors, do not have solid definitions, and are subjected to opinion. Specifying what is and is not an impeachable crime would ease the debate of whether or not someone should be impeached. Though it will be difficult for people to agree what is and isn’t an impeachable crime, once they come to a conclusion, it will be easier in the long run.

    [read less]

    I do not think that the impeachment clause should remain broadly written and applied. Leaving the impeachment clause so broad allows for the House of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Tennessee

    Most all legal documents are written with exactness, precision and intentional specification of every word and statement that the document contains. This is done in order to protect the rights of each party involved, as well as to avoid a lawsuit over something in the document that was vaguely specified. Upon my personal viewing of many legal documents and contracts, the most vague statement that I have found is this: “within reason.” This phrase is extremely vague and is subjective to opinion. As a result, this leaves room for logical fallacies to become manifest through the self-centered reason of an individual, or even political parties. As a result, this type of phrasing is a potential issue, and should be avoided when drafting legal documents. Interestingly, many of the founding documents are vague and unspecified in nature. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says only this statement: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a very short description of crimes that give grounds for impeachment to be Constitutional. Thus, because it is unspecified, individuals could dispute the allegations and create a facade of what was actually executed. It is very possible for individuals to do this in order to escape prosecution.

    The U.S Constitution was written during a time that honesty, modesty, integrity, and loyalty were all considered common decency to uphold. In addition to this, the Constitution was written as an outline for the country (and future generations within the country) to use and adjust within reason. Of course, the vagueness of this leaves room for error within our government and puts the safety of the American people at risk because the office of the President is arguably the most important role in our government (dealing with foreign relations, heading the military, etc.).

    According to the Declaration of Independence, our government is “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” As a result, we are commissioned by our own government to specify, or alter, our government if it meets the needs of the people of the United States of America in order to protect our safety and happiness. In addition to this, the elected officials in each office will have specific guidelines for behavior to abide by. If this is in place, there may be less misunderstandings of what they will be prosecuted for, and thus, less scandals, equalling more productive offices and a more stable and trustworthy government. Specifying the roles of the President of the United States is necessary for the stability and safety of the governed people of the United States and their right to a government without unchecked powers.

    Reference: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs

    [read less]

    Most all legal documents are written with exactness, precision and intentional specification of every word and statement that the document contains. T…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erika from Texas

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the constitution should not stay as broadly written and applied as it currently is. Presidents in the past have committed many crimes and gotten away with them because the constitution allows a wide opportunity in a variety of opinions between the House of Representatives and the Senate. With this wide-open space for debate of whether a certain president should be impeached or not, it allows for some presidents to remain in office even if they did something unjust. Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, even though this article says that a president, when convicted of a crime, should be impeached, it doesn’t give specific misdemeanors. When it says “other high crimes and misdemeanors”, it gives an open opportunity for discussion of whether or not something the president did classifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Sure, if the impeachment clause stays broadly written and applied, it allows the government to impeach for crimes as they see fit; however, it also allows the government to not impeach for crimes they see unfit even if the president does something inadequate and dire.

    [read less]

    I believe that the impeachment clause of the constitution should not stay as broadly written and applied as it currently is. Presidents in the past ha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ulysses from Texas

    No, because if the president commits a crime that many people think is a “high crime and misdemeanor”, and the judge doesn’t think it is, then the president may stay in office even though they have committed a bad crime.

    [read less]

    No, because if the president commits a crime that many people think is a “high crime and misdemeanor”, and the judge doesn’t think it is, then the pre…

    [read more]
    0
  • shakiya from Oregon

    no

    0
    • Daniel from Texas

      huh

      0
  • Alivia from Oregon

    I think we should not because the law has too many laws

    0
    • Chase from Texas

      “The law has too many laws” or do you not understand them?

      0
  • Bianca from Florida

    Trump DIDNT abuse his power and he’s fixing the corruption that the Democrats have instilled in our current government

    0
    • alex from Texas

      That’s not even what the question is about.

      0
    • Tyler from Oregon

      That is correct.

      0
  • Adele from Virginia

    The impeachment process currently allows for a little too much interpretation. It also leaves too much room for difference in opinion between the House of Representatives and the Senate. In previous cases in the United States, impeached presidents were never removed from office. What is the case of an impeachment if not to declare a president unfit to be the ruler of the free world? And if they are, indeed, unfit to be the leader of the free world, then they should not be allowed to stay in office. Making the impeachment clause of the constitution more specific would make it clearer as to what is an impeachable offense and what would make a president unfit to lead. This would allow removal of office, because without removal of office all an impeachment does is inform the American people that their leader is not who they thought they were, and embarrass the United States in front of many other countries where we are to be an example. The only other benefit would be possible lack of re-election to office, but even that is not a guarantee. It would be much more beneficial to specify crimes.

    [read less]

    The impeachment process currently allows for a little too much interpretation. It also leaves too much room for difference in opinion between the Hous…

    [read more]
    0
    • Jonathan from Florida

      An Argument of Devotion and Patriotism versus Morality

      The current impeachment clause is flawed, but because it leaves too much room, rather than not enough. Under the understanding that Presidents may be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” both President Clinton and President Trump had the House attempt to remove them from office on political points rather that moral points.
      The Clinton impeachment was held on grounds of obstruction of Justice and lying under oath, but in a civil case on the issue of sexual harassment. This does not mean that he would be an unfit President, he is no less likely to lead the American people into a path of caos for his own benefit, this was a tactical strike on his presidency by bringing this issue up in 1994.
      We saw the same exact attempt during Trump’s first few months in office with several women coming forward and the Stormy Daniels case. Unlike Clinton, Trump was able to dodge this, he was unfortunate in his case on collusion when he got caught obstructing justice and tried for this. He only obstructed justice for the purpose of making it clear that he did not collude and this does not reflect his sentiments about America, and regardless of his views, I believe he is a true Patriot.
      As Gerald Ford said “an impeachment offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Unfortunately this offense often is simply having the wrong political views or having questionable morals regardless of patriotism, the most important feature of a president. This is why the rules need to be more clear, the blurry lines already cause issues, and this is only regarding the abstraction of Justice issue, the idea of “misdemeanors” is so broad (a group of crime including disturbing the peace) that Presidents in the future may be impeached for just about anything.
      That is not to say that the article should be over regulated, I believe that a clause should say that the President may be impeached if he comots a crime which potentially violates the security of the nation, thus leaving the room for interpretation which makes loopholes impossible, for those who were concerned regarding those.

      [read less]

      An Argument of Devotion and Patriotism versus Morality

      The current impeachment clause is flawed, but because it leaves too much room, rather than…

      [read more]
      0
  • Drew from Oregon

    If the impeachment clause was vague, which it currently is, the House of Representatives would be able to impeach anyone they politically oppose. The system of checks and balances we currently have in place limits the House’s power—by giving the power to try to the Senate—but the vague clause still stands as a potential arbitrary abuse of power. The vagueness of the Constitution has been an issue ever since our country’s conception, with the “elastic clause,” making anti-federalist’s reluctant to adopt the Constitution. Thus, to protect the citizens against potential legislative abuse of power, providing clarity to the impeachment clause would achieve this goal.

    [read less]

    If the impeachment clause was vague, which it currently is, the House of Representatives would be able to impeach anyone they politically oppose. The …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sophia from Kentucky

    I believe that there should be more specific definitions on the grounds of impeachment are. I think this should be done because it allows an unbiased judgment from the House and the Senate. For example, if there is a Democratic president in office, a Republican lead House may interpret the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” differently then if the House was led by Democrats. This goes the same for vice versa. Often, the party of the president, Republican or Democrat, will try to keep their president in office, while the opposite party will lean more towards impeachment. Therefore, by making the impeachment clause less broad, the grounds for impeachment will be more objective and less subjective. Of course, more specification does not mean that they have to be extremely precise, and they should always allow for interpretation according to the time period. But in outlining certain points in the impeachment clause, I believe that the government will ultimately prevent biased opinion on the grounds for impeachment.

    [read less]

    I believe that there should be more specific definitions on the grounds of impeachment are. I think this should be done because it allows an unbiased …

    [read more]
    0
  • Drew from Kentucky

    The way the current impeachment process is set up the House of Representatives is able to interpret the offense committed by a president which I agree with because times are constantly changing. However, I do think the specifications of “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be expanded upon slightly. In its current state the specifications will never be enough to compel the senate into action. Multiple presidents have been impeached by the House but not the Senate. This should not be an issue and could be fixed by more specific guidelines for the impeachment process.

    [read less]

    The way the current impeachment process is set up the House of Representatives is able to interpret the offense committed by a president which I agree…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexandria from California

    Keeping the Impeachment clause as “broadly written and applied” is not helping determine what a president is legally or illegally allowed to do. Defining the terms down to treason, bribery, active lying and withholding information, inciting violence, etc, would be more clear as to the regulations of what a president can and cannot do. There is no point of the people having a say as to who we want our president to be without checks and balances, which as of late have been difficult to see within our government who represent the PEOPLE. Without these distinctions, there is more backdoor dealings, more sneaky methods, more lies and unchecked power that already run wild. The Constitution was made to be changed, not set in stone within the 1700’s. This is 2019, on the edge of a new century and we are following ideals of a new government when we have existed for now 243 years. We can change it. For ourselves and for the greater good.

    [read less]

    Keeping the Impeachment clause as “broadly written and applied” is not helping determine what a president is legally or illegally allowed to do. Defin…

    [read more]
    0
  • Teddy from Kentucky

    Teddy Chapman
    I believe that there should be list of offenses that can be considered punishable by impeachment. The statement, “high crimes and misdemeanors” can be argued forever and makes it impossible to reach a decision. There should be a set list of all the offenses that can lead to impeachment

    [read less]

    Teddy Chapman
    I believe that there should be list of offenses that can be considered punishable by impeachment. The statement, “high crimes and misde…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rakevia from North Carolina

    I vote no because Donald Trump has only been creating a problem for the United States not thinking about, how it will affect the people. He had used the power of the executive to advance his own political interests by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Democratic contender Joe Biden. That shows that he is willing to do whatever to satisfy himself and no one else. People have been out of work because of him, he been building a wall, everything he does is to benefit him and his beliefs.

    [read less]

    I vote no because Donald Trump has only been creating a problem for the United States not thinking about, how it will affect the people. He had used t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Massachusetts

    I do not think the impeachment clause should stay broadly written and applied because it is not doing anything for us. There is already enough information about this impeachment and ther does not need to be any further information. The impeachment clause is not going to work because of you can not get everyone to agree on one thing. The impeachment is clause has recently been put out on television and social media allowing us to know the situation. The government has done a good job on telling the public what their plan is, but that doesn’t mean it will work out in the end.

    [read less]

    I do not think the impeachment clause should stay broadly written and applied because it is not doing anything for us. There is already enough informa…

    [read more]
    0
  • Donovan from Kentucky

    The impeachment clause should add specific impeachable offenses to the vague definition. A definition of impeachment that includes both a vague definition and specific impeachable offenses would allow presidents who do violate impeachable offenses to be punished, as they would be clearly listed, but also allow the impeachment clause to remain versatile and adaptable to changes and remain relevant through the passage of time. A system in which both a vague definition and specific offenses are listed would bring the positives brought by both sides without the negatives brought by excluding the other.

    [read less]

    The impeachment clause should add specific impeachable offenses to the vague definition. A definition of impeachment that includes both a vague defin…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ashley from Kentucky

    I think that the impeachment clause of the constitution should be revised and more specific. Since the matter of offense that could lead to impeachment in the constitution this could lead to many issues. The house of Representatives could be very bias when determining if a crime is worthy of impeachment or not. This is because the rules are so vague. We need to have a more specific list of demeanors that deserve to result in impeachment so that leaders who do not deserve impeachment do not get impeached. ALso, this could help speed up the process of someone who needs to be impeached because the issue would be directly written i the constitution.

    [read less]

    I think that the impeachment clause of the constitution should be revised and more specific. Since the matter of offense that could lead to impeachmen…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from Kentucky

    I think There should be a set of rules for this because how is there any way to be able to tell whether or not the offence the president or whoever has committed is in fact impeachable. A set of rules would help solve this problem eliminate the idea of if they did wrong or not. Set or rules for everyone to follow works in today’s world and if you cant follow them you deserved to be punished.

    [read less]

    I think There should be a set of rules for this because how is there any way to be able to tell whether or not the offence the president or whoever ha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noel from Kentucky

    I believe the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should provide more concrete examples in a way that allows for it to be broad and applied. Currently, the broad language allows the House to use its judgment and apply it as they see fit. However, I think the language is too broad. Additionally, the Constitution states issues such as treason, bribery, and high crimes. Unfortunately, high crimes isn’t a concrete issue. Therefore, I think there should be a new list of examples of high crimes to provide an additional foundation for the House during trials. In my opinion, this would give them a basic idea and then they can apply as they see fit.

    [read less]

    I believe the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution should provide more concrete examples in a way that allows for it to be broad and applied. Curren…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andria from Tennessee

    This topic hasn’t been brought up in the media until TRUMP became president. So what does that tell you ? He’s unfit , unstable, and does not care for his country nor people as citizens we should feel safe and protected instead we feel threatened and scared . Impeachment should with stand instead of asking if the rule of impeachment should be taken away ask and think about who our President and Vice President are fighting for the country or money and rules , rules that affected the United States since forever it’s always a bigger picture to everything impeachment is not one of the problems rn actually it could solve our problems if the government wasn’t so focused on Money . – Andria aka Bossy

    [read less]

    This topic hasn’t been brought up in the media until TRUMP became president. So what does that tell you ? He’s unfit , unstable, and does not care…

    [read more]
    0
  • Logan from Massachusetts

    The vagueness of Article II Section 4 in the Constitution should be addressed, as in the case with President Trump, the case for his impeachment is vague and many are still confused as to what he has actually done that has violated the Constitution. Of course his dealing with Ukraine should not be viewed highly but is it truly grounds for impeachment? With Speaker Nancy Pelosi leading the fight, many Democrats are taking a very firm stance into impeachment and are even at a point where Pelosi believes “It doesn’t matter” if they lose the House in 2020. Meanwhile, Republicans are mostly against impeachment, some arguing his wrongdoing isn’t severe enough and some saying he didn’t do anything wrong at all. All of these issues are mainly a result of the vagueness of the Constitution and is why it should be a more clear cut definition than what it is now. If President Trump has truly committed an impeachable offense, then he should be removed from office. But it shouldn’t be ones interpretation of the Constitution that is the reason for his impeachment. It should be a clear and obvious statement that proves his innocence or guilt. In the future, a more clear and defined Article II Section 4 would make proceedings such as these not as complicated and split as it should be.

    [read less]

    The vagueness of Article II Section 4 in the Constitution should be addressed, as in the case with President Trump, the case for his impeachment is va…

    [read more]
    0
    • Madison from Arkansas

      I feel as though you may be getting impeachment and removal from office confused. If President Trump is impeached, he will withstand a trial within the House of Representatives and the Senate will vote on his sentence. Even if a President has done something that is certainly an impeachable offense, there is still a chance that they will then be acquitted due to the results of the trial. So, with your acknowledgement of the president’s dealings with the Ukraine being below that of an executive, concurring with most of the country, then a reference to the Impeachment Clause should prove that the sitting executive has in fact done something that is treasonous to the American people and their voting procedures.

      [read less]

      I feel as though you may be getting impeachment and removal from office confused. If President Trump is impeached, he will withstand a trial within th…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sydney from Ohio

    Government officials will continue to find loopholes to the current Impeachment clause unless specific rules are made. Action needs to be taken against the current president, and the clause needs to be made for future generations.

    [read less]

    Government officials will continue to find loopholes to the current Impeachment clause unless specific rules are made. Action needs to be taken agains…

    [read more]
    0
    • Madison from Arkansas

      You make a good point about the risk of loopholes in a broadly stated and applied Impeachment Clause; However, if legislators go so far as to put singular definitions on every statement made within the clause, there is the greater risk of an executive getting away with impeachable actions because they do not meet the criteria of a more specific clause.

      [read less]

      You make a good point about the risk of loopholes in a broadly stated and applied Impeachment Clause; However, if legislators go so far as to put sing…

      [read more]
      0