Final Essay Upon the formation of a new Nation in the late 1700s, the founding fathers of the United States put in place checks and balances to protect against an imbalance of power. One of the most powerful of those measures is the ability of the legislative branch to impeach government officials. Impeachment is rarely used, but it acts as an important “backup plan” if things go sideways in government. Allen J. Lichtman’s chapter “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” asserts through a series of explanations and examples of impeachment that it is imperative for Donald J. Trump be removed from office. He goes on to argue two critical points within the chapter: impeachment is a necessary tool of American government, and Donald Trump’s actions eerily …show more content…
Before the first chapter, in the author’s note, he begins his case for Trump’s removal. However, before he continues, Lichtman explains the process and origin of impeachment. This in an effective persuasive strategy because before people can take a side, they must first be well informed on a topic. He uses a quote from John Adams to support his argument in favor of impeachment in which Adams explains how the corrupt nature of man deems that ‘“It is necessary to place checks and balances upon them all’” (Lichtman 4). This statement illustrates a solid point. There is seemingly endless historical evidence of people becoming power hungry and committing terrible injustices. Lichtman then goes on to quote George Mason who explains that the president can commit the worst crimes of all. Mason was absolutely right. Take into consideration, for example, Andrew Jackson and the Native American removal. Although Lichtman is strongly in favor of impeachment, he also makes the point that it should be regulated by explaining the misuse of impeachment by the Jefferson administration. However he upholds his claim that sometimes impeachment is necessary because “too much restraint threatens to allow corruption and abuse to fester in the most powerful office in the world” (Lichtman 18). It is difficult to argue with Lichtman here because the possibility of that situation occurring is not a problem the …show more content…
He begins with the fact that no one expected either of them to become the president. This does not directly deal with impeachment, but it could be an indirect cause of their similar behavior. He then illustrates the similarity in personality between the two by pointing out Johnson’s “stubbornness, hasty action, disdain for cautious advice, and ill-tempered retorts against critics” (Lichtman 11). Even the most avid republican supporter can admit that Trump shares these qualities with Johnson. He explains that both men created populist appeal by expressing sympathy for the “average people.” Lichtman also points out that, like Johnson, the politicians that Trump disdains are the very ones who “hold in their hands the power to impeach and remove the forty-fifth president” (Lichtman XIV). In this respect, Trump and Johnson seem to be on the same path. Lichtman then goes into detail about how Johnson opposed “efforts to reconstruct the nation and integrate newly freed slaves” and “deliberately violat[ed] the Tenure of Office Act” (14). However, he fails to explain that this is where Trump and Johnson differ greatly. Trump has been far from a model of respect and chivalry, but he has done nothing nearly as extreme as Johnson. Trump has undoubtedly made controversial decisions, such as the travel ban, but there was reasoning behind those decisions. Johnson’s attempt to sabotage reconstruction was out of
The impeachments of Clinton and Johnson were in some ways similar but also very different. Both cases had to do with their presidency terms. Johnson would be tried for violating an Act while Clinton was tried for sexual relations. Another similarity was that both of their trials were held in senate. In order for them to be removed a 2/3 vote was required and neither one achieved it.
The book basically talks about two young boys both with the name Wes Moore, who grew up in Baltimore and in the same neighborhood but never knew of each others existence. This is until the author Wes Moore, the one who escaped his rough childhood in Baltimore and the Bronx, began meeting with the other Wes Moore and questioning him who is spending his life in prison because of attempted murder. The author Wes Moore who managed to escape his situation growing up had a much more supportive mother who moved him away from Baltimore and continued to push him to get an education. He lived in the Bronx for sometime with his grandparents and mother, and attended a well renowned school in the Bronx. His mother worked several jobs in order for him to
In chapter 4 of Freakonomics, “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?” Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner discuss and argue the possible reasons for the crime drop in the 1990’s, asking and focusing on the question “just where did all those criminals go” (108)? The authors open with a story about the abortion laws in Romania, transitioning into the many factors that could have affected the 1990’s crime drop in America. Some of these factors include the following; Strong economy, increase in police, gun-control laws, the aging of the population, and then their main argument, abortion. While reading this essay, I had difficulty with many things, first off, my emotions, followed by the overall organization.
America was about halfway divided by Civil Rights. There was the North, the side that supported it the most, and then there was the South, the side that was mostly against the bill. Johnson had been born and raised in the South having a different way of seeing Civil Rights. compared to all the Mexican Americans,
Across the country the ratio of male inmates to women is huge. According to “Criminal Justice a brief introduction” by Frank Schmalleger It states that the ratio that for every 15 male inmates there is only one female. But that doesn’t mean that the number of female inmates aren’t rapidly increasing. Even though there are similarities within both men and women’s prisons they are still in ways different.
The first five chapters of The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz discusses the history of the criminal justice, and it’s flaws as well. He goes in details how things work, and of course the collapse of the system. Stuntz seems to believe although their has been improvements in the constitution, it’s still not perfect. He also suggests some of the things that need to be change.
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
This book follows Johnsons political career, from a eager hard-working congressional secretary to the landslide victor of the 1964 presidential election. It discusses his "liberal" political views, It seems as though Johnson thought he could help the American people single-handedly and he seemed determined to do it. Johnson is He is praised for his vast legislative record and his stand on poverty and eventually, civil rights. He is criticized for his methods and
President Andrew Johnson lifted himself out of extreme poverty to become President of the United States. He was a man with little education who climbed the political ladder and held many different high offices. As a strict constitutionalist, Johnson believed in limiting the powers of the federal government. President Johnson was one of the most bellicose Presidents who “fought” Congress, critics, and many others. President Andrew Johnson faced numerous problems post-Civil War Era including reconstructing the Southern states to combine peacefully with the Union, his battles with Congress, and his career ending impeachment.
On August 17, 1998, exactly one year after making the statement above, President Bill Clinton prepared to deliver a speech concerning a scandal that had gripped the nation for months. It is needless to say that this was an important moment during the Clinton administration. After accusations of sexual harassment, Clinton addressed the nation and admitted to having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In this critical speech Clinton set out to admit to wrong-doings, provide a few reasons for his action, and ultimately persuade the audience into moving on and forgetting the scandal. This essay will break down his speech into sections and examine the most and least effective strategies that Clinton employed and how well he executed those strategies. This is an interesting speech given under rare circumstances. Not since Watergate had an American president been under such harsh moral criticism from the public. By looking critically at this speech we are able to gain valuable insight into Clinton's motives.
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
Impeachment is “ a criminal proceeding instituted against a public official by a legislative body.” (Impeachment). This does not mean automatic removal from office, which is a common misconception. the article goes on to explain how in the United States, the reason impeachment is so rare at the presidential level is because it is quite a long process and keep the Congress occupied for months; due to this impeachment in only employed in the gravest of circumstances. Furthermore, it is not just presidents or federal officials who can be impeached, as 49 states (all but Oregon) have an impeachment procedure in place. Impeachment is considered to be an important part of the checks and balances that make the US government unique, however due to the complicated and time consuming process it is.
William Jefferson Clinton?s eight-year term as president of the United States of America was one of the most corrupt, and possibly the most damaging ever. There is evidence connecting him to hundreds of deaths, injuries, and explosions. He, along with his administration, made a number of ?Faustian bargains and policy blunders?
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
But others today see that impeachment as political opportunism. “Namely, Johnson was opposed to congressional Reconstruction,” says Hans Louis Trefousse, author of Andrew Johnson: A Biography. “So Johnson blocked that and, because he did, they [Republicans] eventually decided they should throw him out.” “A more technical inquiry can hardly be imagined, and as a separate basis for removing a president from office it bordered on the absurd,” wrote U.S.