{ "id": "IN10775", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "number": "IN10775", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 465410, "date": "2017-09-14", "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:24:29.103841", "title": "Resolutions Censuring the President: History and Context, 1st-114th Congresses ", "summary": "Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or government official. Censure against a sitting Member involves a formal process that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5). Non-Member censure, however, is not an enforceable action and has no uniform language. Instead, non-Member censure resolutions may use a variety of terms to highlight conduct deemed by the House or Senate to be inappropriate or unauthorized.\nSince 1800, the House and Senate have introduced numerous resolutions to censure or condemn the President. Aside from the exceptions noted below, these resolutions have failed in committee or during floor consideration. Nevertheless, presidential censure attempts have become more frequent since the Watergate era. The most recent censure resolution was introduced on August 18, 2017, as H.Res. 496 (115th Congress). It uses the phrase censure and condemn in reference to the current President.\nCensure Attempts (Resolution Adopted)\nOn four known occasions, the House or Senate adopted resolutions that, in their original form, charged a President with abuse of power. All of these measures were simple resolutions. Thus, they expressed the \u201csense\u201d of the chamber but did not have the force of law. \nAndrew Jackson (1834). Between 1832 and 1833, Jackson vetoed the re-charter of the Second Bank of the United States, removed the government\u2019s deposits, and refused to provide Bank-related documents to Congress. In response, Senator Henry Clay introduced a censure measure resolving that the President \u201chas assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.\u201d The Senate passed the resolution on March 28, 1834, and then refused to recognize Jackson\u2019s \u201cexecutive protest,\u201d which argued that the Senate\u2019s censure of a non-Senator was \u201cwholly unauthorized by the Constitution.\u201d By early 1837, however, pro-Jackson Democrats gained the Senate majority. On January 16, they voted to \u201cexpunge\u201d the censure from the record.\nJames Buchanan (1860). On June 13, 1860, the House adopted five resolutions charging the Buchanan Administration with ethical violations. The fourth resolution alleged that the President and Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey awarded contracts based on \u201cparty relations.\u201d By doing so, the resolution stated, they deserved the \u201creproof of this House.\u201d However, the fifth resolution, targeting just Toucey, used the word censured to condemn the Secretary\u2019s actions. Thus, it could be argued that the House chose a weaker reprimand for the President. \nAbraham Lincoln (1864). In 1864, the Senate considered a resolution reprimanding President Lincoln for re-commissioning two former generals without seeking the chamber\u2019s approval. The original measure stated that the arrangement \u201cwas in derogation of the Constitution of the United States, and not within the power of the President\u201d to make. As adopted, however, the amended resolution no longer referred to the President. Instead, it affirmed that an officer must be re-appointed \u201cin the manner provided by the Constitution.\u201d\nWilliam Howard Taft (1912). In 1912, President Taft was accused of trying to influence a disputed Senate election. The Senate responded with a resolution that \u201ccondemned\u201d any presidential attempt to control the seating of Senators, an act that \u201cviolates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.\u201d However, the Senate modified the measure, changing violates to would violate. The resolution thus applied to Presidents in general and not specifically to Taft\u2019s past behavior. \nCensure Attempts, 1st-91st Congresses (No Resolution Adopted)\nBetween 1800 and 1952, at least three Presidents were the subject of critical resolutions that were not adopted. One President had his actions condemned with an amendment, while another received harsh criticism via a House committee report.\nJohn Adams (1800). The House charged the President with interfering in judicial proceedings. According to the third of three censure resolutions, President Adams\u2019s conduct sacrificed the \u201cConstitutional independence of the Judicial power, and expose[d] the administration thereof to suspicion and reproach.\u201d The resolutions were defeated in the Committee of the Whole. \nJohn Tyler (1842). A House select committee issued a report condemning the President for repeated and \u201cabusive exercise\u201d of the executive veto. The House adopted the report but did not approve any censure resolutions. Still, the report itself may be considered a presidential censure. Tyler sent an official protest to the House, which was not recognized. \nJames K. Polk (1848). As the House considered a resolution congratulating Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott for their military service during the Mexican-American War, the chamber voted to add the phrase in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President. The amendment passed, but the original resolution was never adopted. The House later adopted another resolution in praise of the generals, and this one included no criticism of Polk or the war.\nUlysses S. Grant (1871). Nine months after the Senate defeated a treaty that would have annexed the Dominican Republic, President Grant deployed naval ships along the Dominican coast. Senator Charles Sumner introduced a resolution that called the action \u201can infraction of the Constitution of the United States and a usurpation of power not conferred upon the president.\u201d The Senate tabled the resolution.\nHarry S. Truman (1952). The attempt to censure President Truman followed a major steel worker strike. H.Con.Res. 207 (82nd Congress) condemned the President\u2019s seizure of steel-producing facilities \u201cwithout authority in law.\u201d As a concurrent resolution, it required the agreement of both houses of Congress, but it never received floor consideration. \nCensure Attempts, 92nd-114th Congresses (No Resolution Adopted)\nRichard Nixon\u2019s controversial terms in office marked a new period in presidential censures. Since 1972, several Presidents have been subject to multiple censure attempts. Most resolutions have used variations of the phrase censure and condemn or, in reference to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, called for the President\u2019s resignation. In all cases, though, the resolutions have been referred to committee with no further action. Information on resolutions dated since 1973 is available from Congress.gov. \nRichard M. Nixon (1972/1973/1974) (92nd Congress: H.Con.Res. 500; 93rd Congress: H.Con.Res. 365, H.Con.Res. 371, H.Res. 684, H.Con.Res. 376, H.Res. 734, H.Res. 1288, H.Con.Res. 589). H.Con.Res. 500 cited the President\u2019s failure to withdraw American troops as directed by the \u201cMansfield Amendment.\u201d All other resolutions related to the Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, one day after the introduction of his last censure resolution, H.Con.Res. 589.\nBill Clinton (1998/1999) (105th Congress: H.Res. 531, H.J.Res. 139, H.J.Res 140; 106th Congress: H.J.Res. 12, S.Res. 44). All resolutions charged abuse of office or obstruction of justice. Three were joint resolutions. Had they passed, the President would have had to sign them, veto them, or allow them to become law without his signature.\nGeorge W. Bush (2005/2006/2007) (109th Congress: H.Res. 636, S.Res. 398; 110th Congress: H.Res. 530, S.Res. 302, S.Res. 303, H.Res. 625, H.Res. 626). S.Res. 398, S.Res. 303, and H.Res. 626 cited \u201cunlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.\u201d Four other resolutions referred to the war in Iraq.\nBarack Obama (2013/2014/2016) (113th Congress: H.Res. 425, H.Res. 652; 114th Congress: H.Res. 582, H.Res. 588, H.Res. 607). The Obama-related resolutions charged failure to implement foreign policy or enforce the laws, as well as \u201cimplementing unconstitutional executive actions.\u201d\nFor additional information on censure resolutions targeting executive branch officials, see CRS Insight IN10774, Congressional Consideration of Resolutions to \u201cCensure\u201d Executive Branch Officials, by Christopher M. Davis; and CRS Report RL34037, Congressional Censure and \u201cNo Confidence\u201d Votes Regarding Public Officials, coordinated by Cynthia Brown.", "type": "CRS Insight", "typeId": "INSIGHTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN10775", "sha1": "0586266fae3cee9b3a17fa92741bda06028268b7", "filename": "files/20170914_IN10775_0586266fae3cee9b3a17fa92741bda06028268b7.html", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4746, "name": "House Floor Procedure" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4747, "name": "Senate Floor Procedure" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4901, "name": "Congressional Documents & Bill Introduction" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4910, "name": "Legislative Branch" } ] } ], "topics": [ "CRS Insights", "Constitutional Questions" ] }