Released in May, “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment” (Basic Books) guides readers through the perilous process for removing an American president from office. Laurence Tribe ’66, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law at Harvard, and Joshua Matz ’12, constitutional lawyer and publisher of the Take Care law blog, provide historically rich, vividly reasoned, and unflinching analysis of this profound constitutional check—from its shifting form during the Framers’ debates, to its many and varied applications since 1788, to the “permanent impeachment campaign” of today. The Bulletin asked Tribe and Matz for their insights on the origins and purpose of the often-misunderstood impeachment clauses and their potential role in our era of “broken politics.”

Q: Ending a presidency is a massive undertaking, yet the Framers kept their guidance on impeachment minimal and very limited on process. Why do you think they did that? Has this had good or bad effects overall?

Tribe: As with most of our mercifully brief Constitution, the Framers were wise enough to know how little they could predict about how the republic would fare in a hostile world and under changing circumstances. Thus they famously decided to provide only a rough outline rather than a detailed blueprint. Planning for the selection of a president, the Framers were of many minds about whether to include an impeachment power and, if so, how to structure it. Could impeachment be made potent enough to remove a despot but not so potent as to undermine an energetic chief executive or make him subservient to Congress? In our book, we extract lessons from founding debates about whether to allow impeachment, who should exercise this power, and what limits should apply on impeachable conduct. We also explore how impeachment has been deployed over the centuries and all the judgment calls Americans have made along the way. In so doing, we bring to life the many ways in which the Framers delegated key judgments to the future.

Tyranny was fresh in the Framers’ minds when they wrote the Constitution. Did that influence how they devised the impeachment power?

Tribe: Not only did tyranny influence how they devised the impeachment power, but the risk of presidential despotism ultimately silenced many of the Framers who began with the view that no such power should be included at all. Without an impeachment process, those Framers came to see, we would render ourselves defenseless against the kinds of tyranny our Founders came to these shores and shed their blood to escape.

No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. Does that mean this “power” is not in fact all that powerful?

Tribe: This fact shows only how difficult the process is to use when a president is determined to cling to power to the bitter end. Richard Nixon, as you know, resigned to avoid what looked like certain impeachment by the House and all-but-certain conviction by the Senate. And the fear of being humbled and humiliated—even through an unsuccessful impeachment campaign—has undoubtedly prevented many presidential misadventures that would otherwise have harmed the nation. Like a sword of Damocles, the impeachment power works its magic of deterring misdeeds not just when it falls but also while it hangs overhead. So it would be quite a mistake to dismiss the impeachment power as a paper tiger. Its roar throughout history has been loud indeed. ...