In my previous column, “The expungement paradox is alive and well” (July 26), I recounted Senate Whigs’ 1834 censure of President Andrew Jackson for defunding the national bank. The censure was subsequently expunged from the Journal three years later when Democrats regained control of the chamber.
That column was prompted by two resolutions introduced this summer by Republicans to expunge from the official record former President Trump’s two impeachments in 2019 and 2021.
The Jackson episode led me to wonder whether any other presidents have subsequently been censured by either house or was that a one-off? In Congress, censure is ordinarily thought of as a formal sanction against a member found guilty by a majority of the body for ethical misconduct. If found guilty, the member must stand in the well of the chamber while the censure resolution is read aloud by the presiding officer.
But how can Congress censure someone from another branch of government, as the Senate did in President Jackson’s case? Black’s Law Dictionary defines censure quite simply as, “The formal resolution of a legislative, administrative or other body reprimanding a person, normally one of its own members, for specified conduct.” On the other hand, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in its 2021 report, “Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History,” offers a broader definition of censure as a reprimand adopted by one or both bodies of Congress, not only against its own members, but against presidents, federal judges and other government officials.
The difference is that “a non-member censure” is not authorized by the Constitution and is simply a hortatory “sense of” expression by one or both chambers meant to highlight conduct the body deems to be inappropriate or in violation of the position held.
Moreover, there is no uniform language for censuring nonmembers. The word “censure” need not be used to qualify under the CRS criteria. Thus, presidential censures may use alternative terms like condemn, unconstitutional, usurp, unauthorized, abuse of power, violation or disapproval. The distinction CRS draws between censures and other resolutions critical of presidents is the difference between condemning a president for abuse of presidential power and inappropriate constitutional conduct on the one hand, and presidential actions or statements with which Congress simply disagrees on the other.
CRS identifies four presidents who have been censured by Congress. In addition to Jackson in 1834, they are Presidents James Buchanan in 1860, Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and William Howard Taft in 1912. CRS lists other presidents who have been the subjects of censure resolutions that were introduced but not adopted. Three of those occurred between 1800 and 1952 involving Presidents John Adams in 1800, Ulysses S. Grant in 1871, and Harry S. Truman in 1952.
The ground shifted after a 22-year lull and censorious resolutions became more frequent. President Richard Nixon invited three such resolutions before resigning in 1974, and President Bill Clinton attracted five such resolutions.
Prior to the 21st century, Congress steered clear of using the word “censure” in resolutions condemning a president, presumably to avoid confusion with the more formal, punitive censures levied against members. That has changed. President George W. Bush had five resolutions filed against him, two of which purported to “censure and condemn him.” President Obama garnered five resolutions, the latter three of which used the terms, “censure and condemn.” President Trump drew three resolutions, the third of which sought to “censure and condemn” him. And a resolution was introduced against President Biden in June 2021 (H. Res. 493) that “censures the President for failure to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ as required by the Constitution.”
Three factors contributed to this increase in censure resolutions over the last half century: the rise of the imperial presidency and the relative weakening of Congress; the frustration over the two-thirds, super-majority vote threshold for convicting and removing a president from office for impeachable offenses; and the increasing partisan polarization within Congress and resort to hardball tactics to prevail over the opposition party.
It is unlikely either branch will abandon this pattern and practice of conflict and confrontation so long as both sides see some political advantage in maintaining it. Congress considers it a badge of honor to be standing up to presidential overreach, albeit only rhetorically, while presidents think it’s a badge of courage to take bold, unilateral actions to achieve their policy goals over an inert and gridlocked Congress. And voters are only mildly amused by this clash of spectacles signifying little.
Don Wolfensberger is former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee from 1991-94, and chief-of-staff of the committee from 1995-97. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2001) and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018). The views expressed are solely his own.