Maria Luevano ‘21
Staff Editor
On Thursday, November 7th, the Karsh Center held the third event in their series exploring the current impeachment inquiry. This event focused on the national security implications of impeachment, presented by Professors Ashley Deeks and John Harrison. The professors each provided interesting viewpoints on the issue. Professor Harrison provided the perspective of his background in constitutional law along with experience from his time working at the Justice Department and serving as a counselor on international law in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the U.S. Department of State. Professor Deeks spoke as an expert in international law, particularly as it relates to national security and intelligence. She has held various positions at the Department of State and currently serves as a member of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Law.
Professor Harrison led off with some of the issues that the current impeachment inquiry has led him to think about. First, he asked whether the Constitution gives the president broad discretionary power. Specifically, he described the debate around the president’s power as it relates to foreign affairs. Some argue that the Constitution confers upon the president complete discretion in conducting the nation's foreign affairs and making national security decisions.
However, that view is highly controversial and contested. If that view is accepted, it brings up a second question—whether the Impeachment Clause actually covers all of these powers bestowed on the position. If the president commits a high crime or misdemeanor when exercising powers that have legitimately been conferred, is that still an impeachable offense? Professor Harrison pointed out that most people would respond with yes, particularly if the exercise of power is connected with actions of bribery or treason. He then described another debate that occurs around these questions of impeachment: The issue of whether government power is conferred for exclusively government ends, and not personal ones. Where exactly is this line drawn between permissible and impermissible use of power? Does it fall in the distinction between public and private motivations? This point has led him to question what this means under the Impeachment Clause and what would happen if a president claimed to have both motives in mind. Finally, specifically related to the details of today’s inquiry, how should electoral motives count under the “government versus personal ends” question? Is this a personal or public concern? The answer to this question is not clear, but Professor Harrison concluded by pointing out that we may see some plausible arguments that political and electoral interests are of public concern.
Professor Deeks then turned to look at some of the practical ways to examine the impeachment inquiry as it relates to national security. She framed these as positive and negative viewpoints. On the positive end, the inquiry can be seen as a way to condemn the President’s threat to our country’s national security. It may work as a signal to both our allies and countries with which we have more precarious relationships with, as a limit to what the U.S. will accept in the behavior of government officials. However, Professor Deeks also sees the ways in which an impeachment inquiry can severely complicate the government’s ability to properly conduct national security. As Professor Harrison pointed out, the Office of the President is the most empowered of the three branches to protect the country and its national security. In light of this, Professor Deeks then noted that the inquiries are heavily distracting to all branches of government, but especially those that deal with national security interests—the executive and the legislature. This distraction could lead to a decimation of our country’s soft power: nonmilitary tools in our dealings with other countries. The inquiry also takes focus away from substantive foreign affairs work and directs it towards procedural issues of impeachment. This creates a good environment for enemies to take advantage of and a bad environment for our allies, who might be more reluctant in their dealings with the U.S. and less willing to share their information. Finally, it makes citizens doubtful of the need for public secrecy when actions by public officials are questioned so publicly. However, Professor Deeks pointed out that these potential drawbacks could be counteracted by the understanding that the impeachment inquiry acts as a systemic corrective of acts that actually hurt our national security more than not addressing them would.
This inquiry has the potential to explore the fact that as a country, we may have significant policy disagreements about what the right course of action is in the national security space. It may also demonstrate areas where we potentially agree—for instance, that we need to know that our officials have our country’s national security interests in mind rather than their personal interests. Ultimately, Professor Deeks cautioned against having “too rosy” a view of these proceedings in light of the practical concerns.
___
ml9gt@virginia.edu