Wading Knee Deep in Words,Words, Words": Senatorial Rhetoric in the Johnson and Clinton Impeachment Trials

A probit analysis of National Election Studies data finds that unlike earlier midterm elections, Republican mobilization significantly increased the vote for Republicans from Republicans in 1994, as Democratic mobilization did for and among Democrats in 1998. In these elections, mobilization asymmetrically increased perceptions of party differences, party preferences, and party loyalty in voting. In 2002, both Republican and Democratic mobilization efforts affected vote choice, significantly increasing support from independents.     

Impeachment Practice in the Era of Lethal Conflict

The purpose of this article is to question the widely-accepted notion that the basic norms of the United States Congress have undergone a dramatic change. In the face of an increased workload, a more divisive political environment, and significant alterations of the formal rules, this article suggests that the basic "folkways" of the House and Senate in the 1980s are remarkably similar to those described by students of Congress three decades ago. Despite some interview evidence to the contrary, patterns of legislative behavior, distinctions between "insiders" and "outsiders," and the pathways to legislative power continue to be defined in terms of such basic norms as reciprocity, apprenticeship, and specialization.     

The Johnson Club and Late Victorian Literary Culture

In 1902 both the Order of Merit and the British Academy came into being. As David Cannadine has noted, Gladstonian liberals including Lord Rosebery, John Morley and Sir G.O. Trevelyan occupied a key segment of the newly formed elite with several others who were admitted to one or both of the new groups, belonged to the Club, the private society founded by Samuel Johnson and Joshua Reynolds in 1764. In fact several members took a leading part in the negotiations leading to the establishment of the Academy. The article seeks to demonstrate the significance of the Club in promoting what Cannadine terms ‘liberal and literary culture’ in the later nineteenth century. A detailed examination of the membership shows a broad array of high achievers in the arts and sciences, as well as many individuals who held important public office. In particular, the Club elected a remarkable group of distinguished Victorian historians, including Macaulay, Grote, Froude, Lecky, Acton, Maine, Stubbs and Creighton. At the end of the century, several members had served in Gladstone's administrations, and as a solid phalanx of liberal politician/writers they provided the base from which the new recipients of the Order of Merit and Fellows of British Academy would be chosen. My conclusion is that the group held a central place in the intellectual and literary world of Britain around 1900, with its extensive connections to the political power base, and understandably provided a nucleus of members for both the Order of Merit and the British Academy     

Evaluating the Clinton Impeachment: Judicial,International, and Institutional Perspectives

Bowling, Kenneth R., and Donald R. Kennon, eds. The House and Senate in the 1790s: Petitioning, Lobbying, and Institutional Development. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2002. Pp. x, 348. $44.95 hardbound.Ackerman, Bruce, ed. Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Pp. xii, 240. $26.95 hardbound.Kotlowski, Dean J. Nixon's Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Pp. xi, 404. $35.00 hardbound.DiClerico, Robert E, and James W. Davis. Choosing our Choices: Debating the Presidential Nominating Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman &; Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Pp. ix, 136. $16.95 softbound.Knott, Stephen F. Alexander Hamilton &; the Persistence of Myth. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002. Pp. x, 336. $34.95 hardbound.     

Presidential Impeachment and Institutional Dynamics in the Iran-Contra Affair and the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal

This paper analyzes institutional dynamics affecting Congress's impeachment decisions regarding the Iran-Contra Affair and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. While other scholars have explained the Clinton impeachment by pointing to differences in the nature of the scandals–a decoupling of public opinion from legislative action, increasing partisanship, and a new media regime–these explanations overlook the nature of impeachment as an institutional confrontation, governed by institutional choices and dynamics. Taking an institutional approach, we argue that congressional decisions were strongly affected by the institutional arrangements adopted by Congress to handle the scandals' investigations. In brief, the earlier strategic approaches of party leaders and the congressional investigatory approach restrained inclinations to impeach President Reagan, while later ones promoted President Clinton's impeachment. More broadly, this analysis demonstrates the important interaction between institutional choices and party leaders' powers and strategies in affecting congressional action.     

The Fall of Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk and the Revival of Impeachment in the Parliament of 1621

The revival of impeachment in 1621 has tended to be viewed exclusively through the prism of parliament. However, this article, which builds on the work of Professor Allen Horstman, suggests that a key factor in impeachment's revival was the dismissal of Lord Treasurer Suffolk for corruption in 1618. Suffolk's removal caused widespread disquiet, since it was assumed that senior officials held office for life. In order to silence these criticisms it proved necessary for the king not only to put Suffolk on trial but also to justify by precedent the lord treasurer's removal. This latter task was performed by the former lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, himself not long disgraced, whose researches in the medieval parliamentary record revealed the following year that errant crown ministers had hitherto been held to account by means of impeachment. Coke subsequently put this discovery to good effect when parliament met in 1621. Against the backdrop of mounting criticism against his hated rival, the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, Coke revealed the existence of impeachment to the house of commons, whose attention was then focused on finding a way to punish the monopolists, Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell. In so doing, Coke not only aided the lower House, which had been struggling since 1610 to find a way of punishing non‐members, but also sought to settle an old score.