Expand chart
Data: Sources, compiled with the help of the House Historian's Office: “A Petition for Presidential Impeachment”; “The House Impeaches Andrew Johnson”; “Origins and Development of the House: Impeachment”; Hinds Precedents, Volume 3; The Age of Impeachment; Congress.gov; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios

If the House votes next week to impeach President Trump, some lawmakers warn that impeaching presidents could become the new normal. Historians and constitutional experts say it won't go that far — but they do concede a drift in that direction.

Why it matters: If impeachment loses its taboo to become just another partisan instrument with implications for elections and fundraising, that would weaken its power as an emergency mechanism and further polarize Republicans and Democrats.

  • This is what's happened to government shutdowns, Supreme Court fights and filibusters.

You know the top lines: For nearly its first two centuries of existence, the United States impeached one president, Andrew Johnson, in 1868. But the pace changed in the last half century.

  • Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, ahead of certain impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 but acquitted in the Senate. Now comes the effort against Trump, also expected to end in a Senate acquittal.

But are three cases enough to show a trend? Or does it simple exemplify poor personal judgment by three modern presidents, and a predictable response by another branch of government to provide a check and balance?

Details: A more thorough examination of impeachment efforts underscores the idea the taboo has been eroding.

  • Prior to Nixon, only five of 36 U.S. presidents had an impeachment resolution brought against them, according to the Office of the House Historian.
  • Random lawmakers targeted Grover Cleveland for crimes like the improper sale of bonds — and Harry Truman for using federal power to seize private steel mills to head off a national strike.
  • But there were roughly 40 impeachment resolutions and investigations into Nixon's conduct alone between May 1972 and the spring of 1974.
  • Five of the eight post-Watergate presidents saw multiple impeachment resolutions introduced against them: Presidents George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Trump. Most of them never went anywhere.
  • Barack Obama did not draw a formal impeachment resolution — but the House Judiciary Committee did hold a hearing to discuss impeaching him, and a Republican congressman introduced a "sense of Congress" concurrent resolution threatening him with impeachment if he took military action against Syria.

Historical experts agree that the proximity of the impeachment efforts against Nixon, Clinton and Trump have reduced the stigma around impeachment, but they maintain it's unlikely to be pursued unless a president acts so questionably as to trigger a serious debate.

  • Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, tells Axios: "I do not see this as the beginning of a trend or more likelihood for impeachments in the future. I think it is the coincidence of having had a few recent presidents who have committed acts worthy of consideration as impeachable offenses."
  • Frank Bowman of the University of Missouri School of Law: "Prior to Nixon, Americans thought of impeachment as a dead letter. But once Nixon happened, he showed it can be used successfully as a tool."
  • Laurence Tribe, the Harvard Law professor and outspoken Trump critic, said political polarization and the rise of social media has made impeachment talk "increasingly common," but that the notion of using it for partisan reasons or personal dislike has actually receded since Clinton survived the effort against him.

Some Republican lawmakers nevertheless insist that the effort against Trump could have a long-term impact.

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he's worried impeachment will be the "new government shutdown," something that used to be a huge deal and has now come to be expected.
  • Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Democrats "have lowered the standard and said they can impeach President Trump again in the future."
  • Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said that "every president for the future of our country is substantially more susceptible to an impeachment for anything anyone in the opposition wants to impeach them for."

Others are dubious.

  • Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told Axios, "I don't anticipate that people are going to be looking to impeachment for a political purpose. It hasn't worked in the past in that regard, and I doubt it will work in the future."

Democratic lawmakers say they're concerned about the flip-side precedent: If Trump is not impeached, future presidents may be emboldened to abuse power and obstruct congressional authority.

The bottom line: Impeachment is less unthinkable than it used to be — but it still depends on a president's actions.

Go deeper

Updated 2 hours ago - Politics & Policy

U.S. officials: Iran and Russia aim to interfere in election

Iran and Russia have obtained voter registration information that can be used to undermine confidence in the U.S. election system, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe announced at a press conference Wednesday evening.

Why it matters: The revelation comes roughly two weeks before Election Day. Ratcliffe said Iran has sent threatening emails to Democratic voters this week in states across the U.S. and spread videos claiming that people can vote more than once.

Updated 2 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

  1. Politics: Senate Democrats block vote on McConnell's targeted COVID relief bill McConnell urges White House not to strike stimulus deal before election.
  2. Economy: Why the stimulus delay isn't a crisis (yet).
  3. Health: New York reports most COVID cases since MayStudies show drop in coronavirus death rate — The next wave is gaining steam.
  4. Education: Schools haven't become hotspots — San Francisco public schools likely won't reopen before the end of the year.
  5. World: Spain becomes first nation in Western Europe to exceed 1 million cases.
Updated 3 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Supreme Court blocks Alabama curbside voting measure

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening blocked a lower court order that would have allowed voters to cast ballots curbside at Alabama polling places on Election Day.

Whit it matters: With less than two weeks until Election Day, the justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the curbside voting ban and overturn a lower court judge's ruling designed to protect people with disabilities during the coronavirus pandemic.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!