Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T17:48:35.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Time Limit for Impeachment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert S. Rankin
Robert S. Rankin
Affiliation:
Duke University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The failure of the recent attempt to impeach the late Governor Horton of Tennessee is of particular interest to students of political science because of the grounds upon which the failure to impeach was justified. The main reason given by many members of the legislature was a constitutional one, namely, that an officer cannot be impeached during his second term of office for high crimes and misdemeanors committed during his first term. Considerable doubt remains as to the soundness of this position, many people thinking that the explanation given was a clever excuse but one that would not justify the failure to impeach. It is interesting, therefore, to ascertain if, in impeachment trials where this point has arisen, a similar position has been taken either by legislative bodies or by the courts.

Information

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , October 1934, pp. 866 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934

References

1 A similar position was taken by Mayor Walker in the hearing conducted before Governor Roosevelt. This case will be considered later.

2 Art. 5, sec. 4.

3 See Proceedings of the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the Trial of Impeachment of Robert W. Archbald (Washington, 1913)Google Scholar.

4 Proceedings, Vol. XI, p. 1652Google Scholar.

5 See statement of Senator Simmons and others. Proceedings, Vol. XI, p. 1675et seq.Google Scholar

6 Statement of Simpson, counsel. Proceedings, Vol. XI, p. 1510Google Scholar.

7 Statement of Senator Borah. Ibid., p. 1635.

8 Ibid., p. 1650 et seq.

9 Proceedings of the Senate Sitting for the Trial of William W. Belknap (Washington, 1876)Google Scholar.

10 Proceedings of the Court for the Trial of Impeachment in the case of Charles L. Crum (Helena, 1918)Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., p. 24.

12 Trial of Impeachment of Levi Hubbell (Madison, 1853)Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 77.

14 The Impeachment Trial of David Butler (Omaha, 1871)Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., Pt. V, p. 9.

16 Proceedings in the Court of Impeachment of George G. Barnard (Oswego, 1875)Google Scholar.

17 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 159.

18 New York Times, Aug. 30, 1932.

19 Ibid., Aug. 31, 1932.

20 Proceedings of the Court for the Trial of Impeachment against William Sulzer (Albany, 1913)Google Scholar.

21 Argument of Mr. Beach in the Barnard case. Barnard Proceedings, Vol. I, p. 159Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 190.

23 Argument of Mr. Estebrook in the Butler case. Butler Proceedings, Vol. I, p. 159Google Scholar.

24 Statement of Senator Gronna. Archbald Proceedings, Vol. XI, pp. 1652–1653Google Scholar.

25 State v. Hill, 37 Neb. 80, p. 86.

26 See Archbald Proceedings, Vol. XI, p. 1647Google Scholar.

27 Ferguson v. Wilcox, 28 S. W. (2nd) 526, p. 534.

28 Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Art. V, sec. 4.

29 Ferguson v. Wilcox, 28 S. W. (2nd) 526, p. 534.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.