Keith Whittington recently posted an essay on impeachment that does a fantastic job of summarizing the issues and scholarship on impeachable offenses.
Reading his essay reminded me that, while researching my latest paper on the public lands, I came across a very interesting exchange between John C. Calhoun and President Jackson. Essentially, Calhoun implied that Jackson had used his office to encourage land speculation for private financial gain. Jackson responded by stating:
“You cannot but be aware, sir, that the imputations which your language conveys are calculated, if believed, to destroy my character as a man, and that the charge is one which, if true, ought to produce my impeachment and punishment as a public officer. If I caused the removal of the deposites [sic] for the base purpose of enriching myself or my friends by any of the results which might grow out of that measure, there is no term of reproach which I do not deserve, and no punishment known to the laws which ought not to be inflicted upon me.”
Jackson then called on Calhoun to retract his statement. He continued: “But in the even that you fail to do so, I then demand that you place your charge before the House of Representatives, that they may institute the necessary proceeding to ascertain the truth or falsehood of your imputation . . . .”
Jackson’s letter is printed at 13 Reg. Deb. 754 (1837).
Accusations of presidents enriching themselves or friends through the office have been common since the first President. E.g., Thomas Paine, "Letter to George Washington, 30 July 1796." Others accused Washington of choosing a site for Washington DC in close proximity to Mt. Vernon for the purpose of increasing the value of his own land holdings. Washington typically ignored these attacks.
Posted by: r | February 27, 2019 at 10:37 AM
Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and all the other fat cats in the Democratic Party who preach about "income inequality" have no shame: they say their opponents should take an oath of poverty to serve, while they, behind the walls of their mansions, dine out on the duped people who actually believe they mean it when they say income inequality is "immoral."
They have no intention, ever, of giving up their privileged lives.
It is easy enough to understand how vulnerable any wealthy person is to such claims and to claims of impropriety in the management of wealth. What is not so easy to understand is politicians, especially Democratic politicians, who enter office with little or no means, and somehow, on a government salary, end up fabulously wealthy.
How about looking into that? Let's start with insider trading.
Posted by: anon | February 27, 2019 at 03:46 PM