Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from California is recognized on a point of order and will state his point of order. Charles Wiggins (R California). Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that Article II fails to state an impeachable offense under the Constitution. May I be recognized on my point of order? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman is recognized on his point of order. Charles Wiggins (R California). Mr. Chairman and members of the committee it is quite clear of from a full reading of proposed Article II that the gravamen of that article is abuse of power on the part of the President of the United States. That concept of abuse is stated in various places by use of the word misuse and in use of the word degaration of Constitutional rights as distinguished from in violation of those rights. The question, ladies and gentlemen, is whether an abuse of power falls within the meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," since we can impeach on no other basis. If it does not then my point of order should be sustained. If it does, then we should proceed with the consideration of that Article.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Charles Wiggins (R California). My problem, Mr. Chairman, is that I have no quarrel with abusive conduct when that conduct does in and of itself violate the law. If that be the case, then we should impeach because of those violations. I do have serious concern as to whether or not conduct which does not violate the law, but which may be characterized by this committee or the Congress as abusive falls within the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors. It s apparent from the proposed Article that its author believes that abusive conduct is impeachable.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Charles Wiggins (R California). My problem is this, just what is abusive conduct? What does it mean? I suggest that that is an empty phrase having meaning only in terms of what we pour into it. It must reflect our subjective views of impropriety as distinguished from the objective views enunciated by society in its laws. It ought to be clear to this committee, a committee of lawyers, that such a phrase as "abuse of power" is sufficiently imprecise to meet the test required by the Fifth Amendment. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the adoption of such an article would imbed in our Constitutional history for the first time, for the very first time, the principle that a President may be impeached because of the view of Congress that he has abused those powers, although he may have acted in violation of no law. If that is true, then we truly are ratifying the statement attributed to the now Vice President that impeachment means exactly what the Congress says it means at a given moment. By declaring punishable conduct which was not, illegal when done, this Congress is raising the issue of a bill of attainder, contrary to the express terms of the Constitution. The argument of ex post facto legislation is now before us. If we are to (tape ends)