Question

Did President Johnson violate the law with his actions? Should he have been removed from office?

Answer 1

The main reason for Johnson's impeachment was his violation of the 1867 Tenure of Office Act, which he had unsuccessfully attempted to veto.

Answer 2

(:

Answer 3

so he shouldve been removed?

Answer 4

yes (:

Answer 5

okay thankss (:

Answer 6

Yeah, totally, he was going against his own law. (:

Answer 7

oh okay thanks guys <33

Answer 8

Welcomeee! ^.^

Answer 9

It's not entirely clear Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act, since he was attempting to remove Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War. The text of the Act specifies that Cabinet Secretaries are entitled to serve for the full duration of the term of office of the President who appointed them. But Stanton was not appointed by Johnson! Stanton had been appointed by President Lincoln before Lincoln's death. Whether Johnson was serving out Lincoln's term, so the rule still applied, or whether Johnson was serving his own term, so it did not, was not entirely clear.

In any event, the Act was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court said so, albeit not in time to save Johnson, nor to prevent some of his successors having problems with the Act, and not even until after the Act was repealed.

Should Johnson have been impeached? Ordinarily I'd say yes, because impeachment is not necessarily a punishment for a crime, but just the expression of the will of the people that recalls someone from office. It's the logical equivalent of a recall election, but where the vote is taken among the people's representatives (in this case the House of Representatives) rather than directly with the people.

But in fact the Constitution specifies that a President shall be removed from office only when impeached for and convicted of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The actions of Johnson don't meet that standard, so he should not have been impeached.