Opinion: The founders provided a solution for Trump: Impeachment

  • By JACK RAKOVE
  • Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:00am
  • Opinion

If Lin-Manuel Miranda ever does a second edition of his smash hip-hop musical “Hamilton,” he may want to develop a new number based on Federalist No. 68.

This was hardly Alexander Hamilton’s most important contribution to The Federalist, the essays he, James Madison and John Jay drafted to support the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. But for the past five weeks, Federalist 68 has sat atop our own charts of oldies-but-goodies from the founding era, for one simple reason. A small group of presidential electors (who call themselves Hamilton Electors) and a few scholars cite this essay to argue that the Electoral College was designed to act as an independent body that could overrule the vote of the people and save the republic from an obviously mistaken choice.

That is the rather fantastic scenario they hope will unfold Monday, when the electors will gather in their separate states to cast their ballots.

That interpretation, desperately beguiling as it seems, rests on a doubtful reading of Hamilton’s text and a faulty interpretation of the early history of the Electoral College. The essay we really ought to be reading, even during this interregnum, is Federalist 65, in which Hamilton discusses the idea of presidential impeachment.

In Federalist 68, Hamilton did proclaim it a “moral certainty, that the office of president, will seldom fall to the lot of any man, who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

That proposition is now destined to meet its most severe test ever. There have been many mediocre presidents, and a few genuine tragedies, like Andrew Johnson and perhaps James Buchanan, the two failures who bracket Abraham Lincoln. But Donald Trump occupies his own unique category of potential incompetence, even as he tells us just how “smart” he is, without providing requisite evidence (like his tax returns).

But nowhere in Federalist 68 did Hamilton explicitly envision the situation that now confronts us, precisely because no one in 1787-88 could have imagined how the presidential electoral system would operate. That is the first truth that Americans have to understand about this mysterious institution. The Constitutional Convention adopted it, not because it was the most attractive way of electing a president, but because it seemed the least unattractive option.

In the “tedious and reiterated discussions” (quoting James Madison) that produced the presidency, the framers of the Constitution formed decisive objections against two more obvious modes of election. Popular election seemed a bad bet, not because they worried that the people would follow the first Trump-like demagogue to canter their way, but because they believed it would prove difficult to form anything resembling a majority in the highly decentralized and provincial American electorate.

Election by Congress would solve that problem, since its members would be the nation’s highly informed political elite. But the framers wanted the president to be independent of Congress, to check its “factious impulses.” They also thought that the promise of re-election would provide an incentive for the best behavior (and this, in fact, was a truly Hamiltonian notion). An election by Congress would undermine both goals.

As the framers cobbled together the Electoral College in their closing days of debate, they built upon the political compromises they had already reached. The large states would have the advantage in identifying candidates in the first round of the election. But should the electors fail to produce a majority, which many framers expected to happen quite often, the election would go to the House of Representatives, voting by states, which would protect the interests of the less populous states. That was a truly terrible decision, because the interests of voters in small states do not differ from the preferences of similar voters in large states — but we’re stuck with it.

So far so good. But the framers left other critical questions open. Who would the electors be? How would they be appointed? Could they be limited in their choice, or bound to follow the preferences of the voters? All of these questions were left to the state legislatures to resolve, and it took a number of elections to reach the equilibrium we now occupy, where a winner-take-all statewide vote decides 533 of our 538 electors, and laws in numerous states bind the behavior of electors.

So long as George Washington wanted to be president, it did not matter what rules were followed. As soon as he announced his retirement to Mount Vernon in 1796, our first two political parties, the Federalists and Republicans — which were essentially formed to support or oppose Hamilton’s policies as our first secretary of the treasury — sprang into action.

They immediately demonstrated two things.

First, contrary to the expectations of 1787-88, a popular election in a single national constituency would produce a decisive victory. In 1796 and 1800, voters proved perfectly capable of choosing between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Second, the electors immediately revealed their true political identities. From the start they always were, and have ever after remained, the loyal agents of their parties. They have never acted as a body of disinterested, highly informed, deliberative citizens. Ironically, no one worked harder to get these electors to serve these interests than the guiding genius of the Federalist Party, Alexander Hamilton, mostly because he despised John Adams and wanted to displace him as party leader.

To ask today’s electors to violate these norms, even when we risk elevating a potential incompetent to the presidency and have to ignore Hillary Clinton’s significant plurality in the popular vote, poses too grave a risk to the constitutional system. I would place my constitutional bets elsewhere.

Though they will not say it (yet), we can safely intuit that Republican congressmen, in their heart of hearts, are already wondering about presidential impeachment. How can they possibly avoid that thought? After all, Republicans lost one president (Trump’s supposed idol, Richard Nixon) to a near-impeachment in 1974, and when they impeached Bill Clinton in 1998, they lowered the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as far as it could possibly go. Trump will be the gift that keeps on giving, and by the standards the Republicans set against Clinton, if he performs as badly as so many of us expect he will, Vice President Pence will become a very attractive alternative. And Republicans know this already.

So Miranda should forget about Federalist 68 — it’s Hamilton’s Federalist 65, with its discussion of impeachment, that we’ll want to study.

• Jack Rakove teaches history and political science at Stanford University. His book, “Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution,” earned the 1997 Pulitzer Prize in History.

More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, many Louisiana homes were rebuilt with the living space on the second story, with garage space below, to try to protect the home from future flooding. (Infrogmation of New Orleans via Wikimedia, CC BY-SA)
Misperceptions stand in way of disaster survivors wanting to rebuild safer, more sustainable homes

As Florida and the Southeast begin recovering from 2024’s destructive hurricanes, many… Continue reading

The F/V Liberty, captained by Trenton Clark, fishes the Pacific near Metlakatla on Aug. 20, 2024. (Ash Adams/The New York Times)
My Turn: Charting a course toward seafood independence for Alaska’s vulnerable food systems

As a commercial fisherman based in Sitka and the executive director of… Continue reading

People watch a broadcast of Former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, delivering a speech at Times Square in New York, on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024. (Graham Dickie/The New York Times)
Opinion: The Democratic Party’s failure of imagination

Aside from not being a lifelong Republican like Peter Wehner, the sentiment… Continue reading

A steady procession of vehicles and students arrives at Juneau-Douglas High School: Yadaa.at Kalé before the start of the new school year on Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Let’s consider tightening cell phones restrictions in Juneau schools

A recent uptick in student fights on and off campus has Juneau… Continue reading

A map shows state-by-state results of aggregate polls for U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump (red) and Kamala Harris (blue), with states too close to call in grey, as of Oct. 29. (Wikimedia Commons map)
Opinion: The silent Republican Party betrayal

On Monday night, Donald Trump reported that two Pennsylvania counties had received… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letters: Vote no on ballot measure 2 for the future of Alaska

The idea that ranked choice voting (RCV) is confusing is a red… Continue reading

(Laurie Craig / Juneau Empire file photo)
10 reasons to put country above party labels in election

Like many of you I grew up during an era when people… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Alaskans are smart, can see the advantages of RCV and open primaries

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization that neither endorses… Continue reading

(Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire file photo)
My Turn: Election presents stark contrasts

This election, both at the state and federal level, presents a choice… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Supporting ranked choice voting is the honest choice

Some folks are really up in arms about the increased freedom afforded… Continue reading

Tongass National Forest. (U.S. Forest Service photo)
My Turn: Why I oppose privatization of the Tongass rainforest

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been trying to privatize the Tongass for years.… Continue reading