Statement by Governor Jan Brewer on the 1-Year Anniversary of SB 1070

The following is a statement by Governor Jan Brewer on the 1-year anniversary of SB 1070:

“One year ago Saturday, I signed into law the Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, better known as SB 1070. I said at the time — and it bears repeating now — that my signature on SB 1070 represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law, both against illegal immigration and racial profiling.

“So, where are we one year later? Federal courts have blocked some of the most critical portions of the law. But they let stand its prohibition on ‘sanctuary city’ policies, meaning local authorities can no longer turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Just as important, the courts couldn’t sap SB 1070’s strength as a rallying point for those of us sick and tired of hearing that our nation’s border can’t be secured, illegal immigration is just too big a problem to be solved or that we all must simply accept drug smugglers on our soil and drop houses in our neighborhoods. With the signing of SB 1070, Arizona said loudly and clearly: ‘Enough.’

“Despite SB 1070 being misunderstood and erroneously portrayed by numerous initial media reports, support for the legislation spread across the entire nation. That support remains strong, whether measured by public polling or the nearly $4 million in private donations given freely by those who have contributed to the legal defense fund established last year: KeepAZSafe.com.

“The outpouring of support from all over the country has had a significant impact. Remember, it wasn’t until a month after SB 1070 was signed that President Obama agreed to send National Guard troops to the border. Arizona’s actions and the subsequent national attention that resulted has helped pressure the White House to act on border security in ways it never would have otherwise. Now, we must keep up the pressure.

“Arizona has been more than patient in waiting for Washington to take concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal immigration. After decades of federal inaction and misguided policy, I and the Legislature had no choice but to stand up for the rule of law and the citizens of this great country. Arizona is willing to do the job that the federal government won’t do.

“One year after the signing of SB1070, I’m determined to fight for this legislation – all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. But it is equally clear that the mission ahead of us is not merely to defend SB 1070. As Governor, I will continue to defend and protect the safety, health and welfare of Arizona citizens.

“Let no one doubt that, one year later, Arizona is stronger and more united than ever before in its resolve.”

Impeachement Of A Government Official In The United States

 

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official and the upper house will conduct the trial.

At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.

Impeachment can also occur at the state level; state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, according to their respective state constitutions.

At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal — impeachment — would be preferable

 

The House of Representatives

 

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on their own initiative, either by presenting a listing of the charges under oath, or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

The type of impeachment resolution determines which committee it will be referred to. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment they will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee’s recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article or the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as “House managers”, with a “lead House manager”) are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.

 

Senate

 

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence (as opposed to the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who vote upon their honor). After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority.

The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[2] Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The removed official is also liable to criminal prosecution. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Senate began using “Impeachment Trial Committees” pursuant to Senate Rule XII. These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber’s time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate’s constitutional mandate, as a body, to have “sole power to try all impeachments.” Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution’s granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.

 

Impeachment of a U.S. President

 

 

Two U.S. Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson (trial) and Bill Clinton (trial). Both were acquitted at trial. Richard Nixon resigned in the face of the near certainty of his impeachment, which had already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

The Chief Justice of the United States presides during the Senate trial of a President.

 

History

 

In writing Article II, Section Four, George Mason had favored impeachment for “maladministration” (incompetence), but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue.[3] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, have disputed this view and argue that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was intended to have a much more expansive meaning.

The Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases; the House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789. Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

Actual impeachments of 19 federal officers have taken place. Of these, 15 were federal judges: Thirteen district court, one court of appeals (who also sat on the Commerce Court), and one Supreme Court Associate Justice. Of the other four, two were Presidents, one was a Cabinet secretary, and one was a U.S. Senator. Of the 18 impeached officials, seven were convicted. One, former judge Alcee Hastings, was elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives after being removed from office.

The 1797 impeachment of Senator William Blount of Tennessee stalled on the grounds that the Senate lacked jurisdiction over him. Because, in a separate action unrelated to the impeachment procedure, the Senate had already expelled Blount, the lack of jurisdiction may have been either because Blount was no longer a Senator, or because Senators are not civil officers of the federal government and therefore not subject to impeachment. No other member of Congress has ever been impeached, although the Constitution does give authority to either house to expel members, which each has done on occasion, removing the individual from functioning as a representative or senator for misbehavior. Expulsion, unlike impeachment, cannot bar an individual from holding future office.