Partial Justice: Congressional Argumentation and Presidential Impeachment

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.

Name thesis:degree_name

Ph.D.

Level thesis:degree_level

Dissertation

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

Political Science

Grantor

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Year dc:date

2015

Author dc:creator

• Matheson, Sean Christopher

Contributors dc:contributor

• Paul J. Quirk

• American Studies

Language dc:language

eng

Identifier

(MiAaPQ)AAI3044170

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82554