Interestingly, Hamilton does not specifically plumb the meaning of the term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as if the term were some mystery to be explained. As such, it is important evidence of the (presumptive) original textual meaning of the Constitution.Įverything Hamilton has to say about impeachment is consistent with a broad understanding of the impeachment power. One is tempted to say: “just go read them yourself.” Hamilton’s Federalist 65 and Federalist 66 constitute the single most complete and insightful discussion of the constitutional power of impeachment we have, as understood by one of the most lucid and useful sources available from the founding era. As I will show tomorrow, literally all of that evidence points in the direction of understanding the power of impeachment as conferring a broad range of legislative discretion to punish executive and judicial officers for a wide array of misconduct not limited to criminal-law offences. Moreover, Hamilton’s perspective is consistent with the views expressed by essentially every other prominent speaker in the ratification debates. Rather, it is because Hamilton’s extensive, public discussion of the nature and scope of the impeachment power well displays, from an exceptionally able source, the likely meaning and contemporaneous understanding of the Constitution’s language, as demonstrated by its usage in important discourse at the time. Nor is it because The Federalist is authoritative “legislative history” defining the meaning of the Constitution’s terms. Framer veneration is not the justification for attending to The Federalist. This is not merely because they are Hamilton’s thoughts.

Both sets of papers are highly instructive concerning the scope, meaning, use, and original understanding of the impeachment power.

He then returned to the power of impeachment in The Federalist 79 and 81 in discussing the existence of checks against abuse specifically of the judicial power. Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius, specifically addressed the power of impeachment in The Federalist 65 and 66. The place to begin, as usual, is The Federalist – the single best exposition of the Constitution’s provisions and (usually) a reasonably reliable indicator of the document’s original meaning. Today, I take up the confirming evidence for such a broad understanding in the ratification writings and ratification-convention debates. In my most recent posts, I set forth the evidence from English legal history and from the records of the Constitutional Convention supporting a broad understanding of the Constitution’s impeachment standard, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as a matter of the original public meaning of the words of the text.

The federalist alexander hamilton