{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82554"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82554","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Partial Justice: Congressional Argumentation and Presidential Impeachment","abstract":"This study examines how participants in the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton argued whether each president warranted removal from office. Specifically, it establishes a four-part typology of impeachment arguments, and examines which of these arguments were advanced by each side in each case. It then looks at whether each side and individual members of each side based their arguments on whether the president warranted impeachment and removal on constitutional or political interpretations and arguments. Ultimately, it finds that participants crafted their arguments in order to best achieve immediate victory in each case. However, the participants in the Johnson and Nixon impeachment proceedings still based most of their arguments on constitutional considerations and relied on commonly accepted norms of constitutional interpretation to support those arguments. In contrast, participants in the Clinton impeachment proceedings relied markedly more on political arguments and interpretations.","abstract_html":"This study examines how participants in the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton argued whether each president warranted removal from office. Specifically, it establishes a four-part typology of impeachment arguments, and examines which of these arguments were advanced by each side in each case. It then looks at whether each side and individual members of each side based their arguments on whether the president warranted impeachment and removal on constitutional or political interpretations and arguments. Ultimately, it finds that participants crafted their arguments in order to best achieve immediate victory in each case. However, the participants in the Johnson and Nixon impeachment proceedings still based most of their arguments on constitutional considerations and relied on commonly accepted norms of constitutional interpretation to support those arguments. In contrast, participants in the Clinton impeachment proceedings relied markedly more on political arguments and interpretations.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Matheson, Sean Christopher"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Paul J. Quirk"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-25T20:49:17Z","date_published":"2015-09-25T20:49:17Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:18Z","subjects":["American Studies"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3044170"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3044170","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82554","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Paul J. Quirk"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Matheson, Sean Christopher"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-25T20:49:17Z","10000-01-01","2002"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["American Studies"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82554","(MiAaPQ)AAI3044170"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This study examines how participants in the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton argued whether each president warranted removal from office. Specifically, it establishes a four-part typology of impeachment arguments, and examines which of these arguments were advanced by each side in each case. It then looks at whether each side and individual members of each side based their arguments on whether the president warranted impeachment and removal on constitutional or political interpretations and arguments. Ultimately, it finds that participants crafted their arguments in order to best achieve immediate victory in each case. However, the participants in the Johnson and Nixon impeachment proceedings still based most of their arguments on constitutional considerations and relied on commonly accepted norms of constitutional interpretation to support those arguments. In contrast, participants in the Clinton impeachment proceedings relied markedly more on political arguments and interpretations.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:49:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3044170.pdf: 15313877 bytes, checksum: 18f6028d0ae901952084a9e18d79bf69 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2002","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83835 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","321 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Partial Justice: Congressional Argumentation and Presidential Impeachment"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Paul J. Quirk"],"dc:creator":["Matheson, Sean Christopher"],"dc:date":["2015-09-25T20:49:17Z","10000-01-01","2002"],"dc:description":["This study examines how participants in the impeachment proceedings against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton argued whether each president warranted removal from office. Specifically, it establishes a four-part typology of impeachment arguments, and examines which of these arguments were advanced by each side in each case. It then looks at whether each side and individual members of each side based their arguments on whether the president warranted impeachment and removal on constitutional or political interpretations and arguments. Ultimately, it finds that participants crafted their arguments in order to best achieve immediate victory in each case. However, the participants in the Johnson and Nixon impeachment proceedings still based most of their arguments on constitutional considerations and relied on commonly accepted norms of constitutional interpretation to support those arguments. In contrast, participants in the Clinton impeachment proceedings relied markedly more on political arguments and interpretations.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:49:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3044170.pdf: 15313877 bytes, checksum: 18f6028d0ae901952084a9e18d79bf69 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2002","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83835 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","321 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82554","(MiAaPQ)AAI3044170"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["American Studies"],"dc:title":["Partial Justice: Congressional Argumentation and Presidential Impeachment"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:18Z"}