article on Should political parties also be impeached
Answers
Answered by
4
The impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India has been nipped in the bud, by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha disallowing the motion. This fails to distinguish between impeachment as process and impeachment as end result, at best, and is partisan disregard for parliamentary propriety, at worst.
The impeachment motion has been widely criticised, and evaluated as being supported by insufficient grounds to warrant impeachment. But such condemnation of the move has failed to address the following, vital question. How should the political system respond to judicial conduct that endangers democracy, according to the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice, when the Court itself ignores the plaint and the executive is seemingly comfortable with things as they are?
The Constitution of India has exactly one method for the rest of the system to apply a corrective to the judiciary: impeachment of a judge, under Article 124. There is no mechanism for oversight of the judiciary or even feedback. This is unsatisfactory at the best of times, but worked as an uneasy compromise when the executive played its constitutionally envisaged role in appointing judges. This role was done away with and the Judiciary acquired the unalloyed right of self-propagation, with its ruling in 1993 in the so-called Second Judges Case. Since then, the Judiciary has been accountable only to itself.
It is against this background that the 195th Report of the Law Commission, the 2006 and 2008 Amendment bills to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the infructuous Judicial Standards and Accountability Council Bill 2010 were produced, to propose a provision for inquiring into complaints against judges and taking action on the findings, including stringent penalties on mischievous complainants. The UPA government’s attempt to restore the executive’s balance vis-à-vis the judiciary found endorsement in the present government’s attempt to create a National Judicial Appointments Commission. The Court struck it down, as well.
The impeachment motion has been widely criticised, and evaluated as being supported by insufficient grounds to warrant impeachment. But such condemnation of the move has failed to address the following, vital question. How should the political system respond to judicial conduct that endangers democracy, according to the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice, when the Court itself ignores the plaint and the executive is seemingly comfortable with things as they are?
The Constitution of India has exactly one method for the rest of the system to apply a corrective to the judiciary: impeachment of a judge, under Article 124. There is no mechanism for oversight of the judiciary or even feedback. This is unsatisfactory at the best of times, but worked as an uneasy compromise when the executive played its constitutionally envisaged role in appointing judges. This role was done away with and the Judiciary acquired the unalloyed right of self-propagation, with its ruling in 1993 in the so-called Second Judges Case. Since then, the Judiciary has been accountable only to itself.
It is against this background that the 195th Report of the Law Commission, the 2006 and 2008 Amendment bills to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the infructuous Judicial Standards and Accountability Council Bill 2010 were produced, to propose a provision for inquiring into complaints against judges and taking action on the findings, including stringent penalties on mischievous complainants. The UPA government’s attempt to restore the executive’s balance vis-à-vis the judiciary found endorsement in the present government’s attempt to create a National Judicial Appointments Commission. The Court struck it down, as well.
Answered by
3
Political Parties and Impeachment
Political parties impeach for political gain. By analyzing the constitutional provisions for impeachment and the character of several past impeachments, it can be seen that this is often the case. The nature of parties concurs with the actions they exhibit because they use their functions and powers to enact their cause. The two-party system helps their cause while party weakness hurts them. Impeachment is an apt symbol of the power struggle between Congress and the President. It is a political action that many not necessarily be good for the nation. Before these conclusions can be made, the details of impeachment must first be discussed.
Impeachment at the federal level is basically like a courtroom conviction in the sense that when a person is impeached, that person has been convicted of wrongdoing. The criminal charges are generally stated in the articles of impeachment. The House decides on impeachment while the Senate tries the impeachment. The Congressional Quarterly issue, "Impeachment and the U.S. Congress," describes the power well.
"Impeachment is perhaps the most awesome though the least used power of Congress. In essence, it is a political action, couched in legal terminology, directed against a ranking official of the federal government. The House of Representatives is the prosecutor. The Senate chamber is the courtroom; and the Senate is the judge and jury. The final penalty is removal from office and possible disqualification from further office. There is no appeal."
The Constitution, in Articles I and II, gives the broad outline of where the powers are vested and when they may be used. Each chamber of Congress has the authority to set up rules within these broad constraints. (Lecture) According to the Quarterly, the impeachment process was originally heavily debated and caused quite a controversy. Nevertheless, since the precedents have been laid down, it has been less of an issue. The definition of impeachable crimes, although originally a lesser issue, has become a major topic of contention in recent impeachments. This stems from the fact that the definition is shrouded in ambiguity. After several revisions, the founders decided in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, that impeachment crimes consisted of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The quarterly also gives information about the history of impeachment. Between 1789 and 1974, thirteen officers were impeached by the House. Of these, the most sensational two were the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court in 1805 and President Andrew Johnson in 1868. The House impeached both of these powerful political figures-"Chase for partisan conduct on the bench; Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act. ... Behind both impeachments lay intensely partisan politics." Recently, we have seen the highly publicized impeachment of President William Clinton, which was also decided along party lines.
In the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, the parties were able to exploit the ambiguity in the question of impeachable offenses to further their causes. The evidence for this comes from several facts as given in the Quarterly. First of all, the two sides were the Jeffersonian Republicans, who wanted to impeach, and the Federalists, who didn't. (Brittanica) The Republicans, taking the broad constructionist viewpoint, argued that impeachment should be viewed as a political weapon. This could be called the founder's intent interpretation because "the constitutional debates seemed to indicate [this viewpoint of impeachment]." On the other side, the Federalists used the narrow constructionist viewpoint that impeachment should be limited to offenses indictable at common law; this could be called the plain meaning interpretation. They argued that Chase was being tried for partisan conduct on the bench, which was not indictable. Both arguments are legitimate interpretations of the Constitution that could influence a person's decision. (Lecture) This dual legitimacy gave a line to the parties across which they could take sides to further their own political agendas.
Political parties impeach for political gain. By analyzing the constitutional provisions for impeachment and the character of several past impeachments, it can be seen that this is often the case. The nature of parties concurs with the actions they exhibit because they use their functions and powers to enact their cause. The two-party system helps their cause while party weakness hurts them. Impeachment is an apt symbol of the power struggle between Congress and the President. It is a political action that many not necessarily be good for the nation. Before these conclusions can be made, the details of impeachment must first be discussed.
Impeachment at the federal level is basically like a courtroom conviction in the sense that when a person is impeached, that person has been convicted of wrongdoing. The criminal charges are generally stated in the articles of impeachment. The House decides on impeachment while the Senate tries the impeachment. The Congressional Quarterly issue, "Impeachment and the U.S. Congress," describes the power well.
"Impeachment is perhaps the most awesome though the least used power of Congress. In essence, it is a political action, couched in legal terminology, directed against a ranking official of the federal government. The House of Representatives is the prosecutor. The Senate chamber is the courtroom; and the Senate is the judge and jury. The final penalty is removal from office and possible disqualification from further office. There is no appeal."
The Constitution, in Articles I and II, gives the broad outline of where the powers are vested and when they may be used. Each chamber of Congress has the authority to set up rules within these broad constraints. (Lecture) According to the Quarterly, the impeachment process was originally heavily debated and caused quite a controversy. Nevertheless, since the precedents have been laid down, it has been less of an issue. The definition of impeachable crimes, although originally a lesser issue, has become a major topic of contention in recent impeachments. This stems from the fact that the definition is shrouded in ambiguity. After several revisions, the founders decided in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, that impeachment crimes consisted of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
The quarterly also gives information about the history of impeachment. Between 1789 and 1974, thirteen officers were impeached by the House. Of these, the most sensational two were the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court in 1805 and President Andrew Johnson in 1868. The House impeached both of these powerful political figures-"Chase for partisan conduct on the bench; Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act. ... Behind both impeachments lay intensely partisan politics." Recently, we have seen the highly publicized impeachment of President William Clinton, which was also decided along party lines.
In the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, the parties were able to exploit the ambiguity in the question of impeachable offenses to further their causes. The evidence for this comes from several facts as given in the Quarterly. First of all, the two sides were the Jeffersonian Republicans, who wanted to impeach, and the Federalists, who didn't. (Brittanica) The Republicans, taking the broad constructionist viewpoint, argued that impeachment should be viewed as a political weapon. This could be called the founder's intent interpretation because "the constitutional debates seemed to indicate [this viewpoint of impeachment]." On the other side, the Federalists used the narrow constructionist viewpoint that impeachment should be limited to offenses indictable at common law; this could be called the plain meaning interpretation. They argued that Chase was being tried for partisan conduct on the bench, which was not indictable. Both arguments are legitimate interpretations of the Constitution that could influence a person's decision. (Lecture) This dual legitimacy gave a line to the parties across which they could take sides to further their own political agendas.
Similar questions