Still trying to set one sovereignty against another. Not always intentionally, we must think.
If certain states do not pay, a TBD percentage of states may vote to force collection. (They couldnt have been serious, could they?)
Serious? Yes. Naïve, but serious. Fortunately, before September good sense prevailed.
I find removal of the Executive(s) on a vote of state governors to be interesting.
Instead impeachment was to be tried by the Senate (appointed by the states) and charges were to be brought by the people in the form of their representatives. Not so far from the original idea.
Of course today impeachment is a joke. How we got from there to here is a long story. I wonder if the original proposal would be any better today. Somehow, I doubt it.
Thanks for rhe ping.
In the second week of Sept, they narrowed the clause to, “He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and conviction by the Senate, for Treason, or bribery.
Why, it was asked, impeachment for treason and bribery only? Treason will not reach many significant offenses. What of attempts to subvert the Constitution? It was moved to add, or maladministration after bribery.
James Madison feared it would lead to too many Presidents getting the boot by hostile Congresses.
George Mason motioned to withdraw maladministration to substitute, other high crimes and misdemesnors against the State, which passed by a 7-4 vote.
The Committee of Style cleaned up his prose to the clause we know today.
I agree with the pol who remarked that an impeachable crime is whatever Congress thinks it is. And yes, as you say, it has not been used often enough.
It is a pity that “maladministration” did not remain in the Constitution. The office of the President has gathered too many authoritarian powers about it these past 220 years. An office whose primary purpose was to execute the law, has turned into a force of arbitrary oppression.