Barbara Jordan: “The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment”

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

The involvement of President Richard Nixon and some of his key aides in the planning and subsequent cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C., on June 17, 1972, dominated much of Barbara Jordan's first term in the House of Representatives. In early 1974 the House Judiciary Committee began considering the impeachment of the president. The committee met in closed sessions for a number of months, examining documents. Finally, in late July, the committee began televised public hearings. Each committee member was allowed to present a fifteen-minute introductory statement.

Jordan approached the impeachment process very seriously and personally researched the subject. As she addressed the committee and the nation, her sober tone made it clear that she recognized the historic importance of the decision that the committee had to make. She begins by pointing out that when the Constitution was written, she—that is, in various respects, as a representative of both her race and her gender—was not included in its mention of “We, the people.” She then notes that she has by the present been included through court cases and amendments. Jordan proceeds to state that she has complete faith in the Constitution, assuring listeners that she believes in the nation's founding document and will remain true to it. She does not intend to allow the Constitution to be undermined by anyone—not even a president.

After describing the process of impeachment and the role of the House as prosecutor but not judge, Jordan carefully examines impeachment from the standpoint of the federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers, and the ratification conventions in several states. She explains that impeachment of the president is a narrow exception to the general separation-of-powers doctrine. It is a grave remedy reserved for serious offenses. She assures the public that Congress has too much to do for the committee to engage in pettiness; to counter assertions that some evidence is thin, she lists what the president knew with regard to the Watergate break-in. Explaining why the hearings should not be postponed to allow the president more time to provide information, she states, “The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

At this point Jordan expresses her intention “to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the president has engaged in.” She provides criteria from several primary sources, in each case quoting the source and explaining which of the president's actions fit that source's standards for impeachment. Before moving to the next example, she again quotes from the primary source, reinforcing its applicability to the circumstances presented. Jordan concludes by suggesting that the Constitution is worthless paper if its impeachment provisions do not apply to the offenses attributed to the president. However, she counsels reason rather than passion in the ensuing deliberations. Her own remarks provided an example of a reasoned approach to impeachment. Although Nixon was a Republican and Jordan a Democrat, her remarks were notably nonpartisan. Public response to Jordan's speech was mixed. Although many were impressed by her forcefulness and logic, others considered her arrogant. Some, including Republicans, expressed their admiration and their willingness to vote for her if she ever ran for president.

In its televised hearings of July 24–30, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee agreed on three articles of impeachment against President Nixon. Each of the three articles of impeachment charged him with actions Jordan had referred to in her remarks. On August 9, 1974, before the articles of impeachment were formally reported to the full House, Nixon resigned, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Gerald Ford, Nixon's successor, later granted him a full pardon for all acts that he had or might have committed against the United States while president.