A consideration of Presidential 'removal'
Commentary
The possibility of some method of reprimanding an executive magistrate who was considered ‘unfit’ was first discussed here, with the delegates talking of the ‘removal’ of the executive. Mr Mason of the Virginia delegation suggested a remedy on this case was necessary for two reasons: first, that those choosing the executive were fallible, and might choose someone who time would show was ‘unfit’, and second that whoever was chosen would be susceptible to corruption.
However, the method suggested at this point was not that of impeachment as we know it today, which Mr Dickinson of the Delaware delegation declared here he was not a fan of, but instead removal of the president on request by a majority of the state legislatures. This method it seems would have left no room for the president to present a defence in the same way as during a trial for impeachment.
Associated event
Virginia Plan [Resolutions] - Seventh Resolution (Executive Branch): Dickinson/Bedford on Removal was debated
on 02 June 1787None
A consideration of Presidential 'removal' by Kat Howarth (KatHowarth)
Impeachment and the Convention
Cite as: Kat Howarth, ‘A consideration of Presidential 'removal'’ in Kat Howarth, Impeachment and the Convention, Quill Project at Pembroke College (Oxford, 2016), item 92.