Statement on the Articles of Impeachment: summary & analysis

The whole speech in 60 seconds

In July 1974 the House Judiciary Committee was deciding whether to recommend impeaching President Richard Nixon, and its debate was on national television. Barbara Jordan, a first-term congresswoman from Houston, opened by pointing out that the Constitution’s “We, the people” had not included her when it was written. Then she spent the rest of her time defending that same Constitution. She reads the Framers’ tests for impeachment one at a time and sets the President’s actions next to each. Watch how a speech that starts with exclusion ends as the strictest defense of the document in the room.

The claim

Impeachment is the Framers’ own safeguard against a President who abuses the public trust, and the evidence shows that the President’s conduct meets the tests they set. If the Constitution cannot reach these offenses it is worthless, so the committee must answer the question now, guided by reason rather than passion.

The rhetorical situation who, to whom, when, and why

SpeakerBarbara Jordan, a Democratic Representative from the 18th Congressional District of Texas and one of the committee’s junior members (paragraph 2). Elected in 1972, she was one of the first two Black members of Congress from the South since Reconstruction, and the first Black woman.

AudienceThe Chairman and her fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee, who would vote on the articles. Beyond them were the millions of Americans watching the televised debate, the same people she says waited anxiously the day before (paragraph 15).

OccasionThe evening session of July 25, 1974, when committee members gave opening statements in the debate on articles of impeachment against President Nixon. Earlier that day, she notes, members had heard the Preamble read and heard arguments that the evidence was thin (paragraphs 3 and 12).

ExigenceThe Watergate investigation had turned up evidence that the President had worked to block it. Some members argued that the evidence was insufficient and that the committee should wait for more material from the White House (paragraphs 12 and 14).

PurposeTo define impeachable conduct by the Framers’ standards, show that the evidence meets those standards, and persuade members to decide on reason rather than party feeling (paragraphs 9 and 29).

ContextThe Watergate break-in took place on June 17, 1972. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over his tape recordings. The committee approved three articles of impeachment between July 27 and July 30, and Nixon resigned on August 9, before the full House voted. This page prints the official committee print, which differs in places from what Jordan said aloud, most of all in one passage about the Fielding break-in.

Place

The House Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C.

The committee was debating whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House. The debate was televised to a national audience.

Time

The evening of July 25, 1974

The day after the Supreme Court ordered the President to turn over his tapes, which Jordan calls “yesterday” (paragraph 15). The Watergate break-in had taken place two years earlier, on June 17, 1972 (paragraph 12).

What Statement on the Articles of Impeachment says

Jordan thanks the Chairman and, like her colleague Mr. Rangel, thanks him for letting the junior members share the pain of the inquiry. She recalls that the Preamble was read earlier that day and says that when the Constitution was completed in 1787 she was not included in “We, the people.” Only through amendment, interpretation and court decision has she been included. Now, as an inquisitor, she declares that her faith in the Constitution is whole and that she will not watch it be destroyed.

She then defines impeachment, drawing on Federalist No. 65, the Federal Convention, the North Carolina and Virginia ratification conventions and Woodrow Wilson. Impeachment deals with the misconduct of public men and the abuse or violation of a public trust. A member who votes for an article need not believe the President should be removed, because the House accuses and the Senate judges. Impeachment is a narrow exception to the separation of powers, limited to high crimes and misdemeanors. It will stir passions and divide the community, and only the grossest offenses can overcome party interest.

Congress has too much work, she says, to act for petty reasons. She answers two arguments made that day: that the evidence of misuse of the CIA is thin, and that the committee should wait for more evidence from the President. She lists what the President knew on June 23, 1972, points out that the committee’s subpoena is still outstanding, and recalls the country’s eight-hour wait to learn whether he would obey the Supreme Court.

Next she sets impeachment criteria beside the President’s actions: the payments to defendants and the meetings with Henry Petersen, the Huston plan and the break-in at Dr. Fielding’s office, false public statements, and advice to aides to commit perjury. She ends by saying that if the impeachment provision will not reach these offenses, the Constitution might as well go into a paper shredder. The committee must answer the question, guided by reason and not passion.

The line of reasoning how the argument moves

Claims her place in “We, the people”In paragraphs 1 to 4, after the courtesies, Jordan says the Constitution first left her out and that she was included only later. Then she declares her faith in it. Starting here gives a junior member standing: she is defending a document she had to fight her way into.
Sets the standard firstParagraphs 5 to 10 define impeachment through Federalist No. 65, the Federal Convention of 1787, the state ratifying conventions of 1788 and Woodrow Wilson, and correct the idea that voting to impeach means voting to remove. Because the rule comes from the Framers before any evidence appears, no member can call it a partisan rule.
Clears away the objectionsParagraphs 11 to 15 reject pettiness, then answer the claims that the CIA evidence is thin and that the committee should wait. The outstanding subpoena and the eight-hour wait over the Supreme Court’s order suggest that any delay lies with the President, not the committee.
Sets criteria beside conductIn paragraph 16 she announces her method, and paragraphs 17 to 28 carry it out. Each test from Madison, Justice Story or the South Carolina convention is followed by what the evidence shows, and several tests are repeated so the listener sees the match.
Poses the questionParagraph 29 turns everything into a choice: either the Constitution reaches these offenses or it belongs in a shredder. She states the question, calls for an answer now, and asks for reason over passion before yielding her time in paragraph 30.

The full text paragraphs numbered for citation

¶1Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¶2Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, Mr. Rangel, in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

¶3Earlier today we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, We, the people. It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the 17th of September in 1787 I was not included in that “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.”

¶4Today, I am an inquisitor, I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

¶5“Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?” (Federalist No. 65) The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an Article of Impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the Framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

¶6We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. “It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers” to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the Executive if he engages in excesses. “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.” (Hamilton, Federalist No. 65) The Framers confined in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical; and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim, the Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the others.”

¶7The North Carolina Ratification Convention: “No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.”

¶8“Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,” said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 65. “And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” I do not mean political parties in that sense.

¶9The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, “high crime and misdemeanors.”

¶10Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that “nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”

¶11Commonsense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do. Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big because the task we have before us is a big one.

¶12This morning in a discussion of the evidence we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.

¶13What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt’s participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt’s fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy administration.

¶14We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here.

¶15The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for 8 hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

¶16At this point I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President’s actions.

¶17Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia Ratification Convention. “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

¶18We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 Presidential campaign.

¶19We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, “if the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.”

¶20Justice Story: “Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.”

¶21We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist’s office. We know that there was absolute complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrlichman to “do whatever is necessary.” This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding’s office.

¶22“Protect their rights.” “Rescue their liberties from violation.”

¶23The South Carolina Ratification Convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

¶24Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by Government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false.

¶25These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who “behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

¶26James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

¶27The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a Federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice.

¶28“A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

¶29If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That is the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

¶30I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Text: Debate on Articles of Impeachment, House Committee on the Judiciary, July 1974 (Government Printing Office), the official committee print, checked on the page images.

Paragraph by paragraph what each part does

1

Paragraphs 1 to 4: Included in “We, the people”

Jordan thanks the Chairman and says the junior members have shared the pain of the inquiry. She recalls that she was not included in “We, the people” in 1787 and was included only through amendment, interpretation and court decision. As an inquisitor, she says her faith in the Constitution is whole and she will not be an idle spectator to its destruction.

Why it mattersThe personal story builds ethos quickly. A member who had to be written into the Constitution cannot easily be accused of taking it lightly.
2

Paragraphs 5 to 10: What impeachment is

Quoting Federalist No. 65, Jordan says impeachment deals with the misconduct of public men and the abuse or violation of a public trust. She argues that voting for an article does not require believing the President should be removed, since the House accuses and the Senate judges. She cites the Federal Convention, the North Carolina and Virginia conventions, Hamilton and Woodrow Wilson on the limits of impeachment and its power to divide the country.

Why it mattersThis section fixes the standard before any evidence is heard. Leaning on the Framers’ words lets Jordan speak as their interpreter rather than as a partisan.
3

Paragraphs 11 to 15: Not petty, not premature

Jordan says Congress has too many urgent problems to act for petty reasons. She answers the morning’s claim that the CIA evidence is thin by listing what the President knew on June 23, 1972, including the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt. She rejects the call for delay, noting that the committee’s subpoena is outstanding and that the country waited eight hours to learn whether the President would obey the Supreme Court.

Why it mattersHere Jordan turns from definition to refutation. By answering the day’s objections before presenting her case, she leaves opponents with less room to reply.
4

Paragraphs 16 to 28: Criteria and actions side by side

Jordan juxtaposes impeachment criteria with the President’s actions. Madison’s test about sheltering a suspicious person is set beside the payments to defendants and the President’s meetings with Henry Petersen. Justice Story’s words about protecting rights are set beside the Huston plan and the Fielding break-in, the South Carolina test about betraying the public trust beside false public statements, and Madison’s test about subverting the Constitution beside counseling perjury and concealing a break-in.

Why it mattersThe alternating pattern is the core of the argument. The repeated quotations work like a refrain, so the listener reaches the verdict just before she states it.
5

Paragraphs 29 to 30: The question and the answer

Jordan says that if the impeachment provision will not reach these offenses, the 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. She asks whether the President has committed offenses the Constitution will not tolerate, says the committee should answer now, and calls for reason, not passion. She yields back the balance of her time.

Why it mattersThe ending frames the vote as a test of the Constitution itself. Closing on reason keeps a strong charge from sounding like anger.

Rhetorical choices what the writer does, and why it works

Personal testimony and irony

In paragraph 3 Jordan says she felt for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton “just left me out by mistake.” The understatement is ironic, since the exclusion was no mistake. For a committee about to judge a President’s loyalty to the Constitution, her story shows what it costs to be outside it and why she values it.

Tricolon and climax

Paragraph 4 builds two sets of three: her faith is “whole,” “complete,” “total,” and she will not watch “the diminution, the subversion, the destruction” of the Constitution. Each list rises in force, so the declaration lands with growing weight before she turns to cooler legal argument.

Appeal to the Framers’ authority

Paragraphs 5 to 10 quote Federalist No. 65, the Federal Convention and the state ratifying conventions, and later paragraphs add Madison (paragraphs 17 and 26), the South Carolina ratifying convention (paragraph 23) and Justice Story (paragraph 20). Speaking to members of both parties, she lets the founders define the offense, which makes her conclusion harder to dismiss as politics.

Juxtaposition

Jordan names the device herself in paragraph 16: she will juxtapose criteria with actions. From paragraph 17 to paragraph 28 each quoted test is followed by evidence, such as the 27 meetings with Henry Petersen in paragraph 19. The listener does the matching and so feels the conclusion is their own.

Repetition as refrain

Madison’s line that a President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution appears in paragraph 26 and again, alone, in paragraph 28. Paragraph 25 repeats “behave amiss or betray their public trust” from paragraph 23, and paragraph 22 echoes Story’s words from paragraph 20. “We know” opens sentences in paragraphs 19, 21 and 29. The repetition makes a legal argument easy to follow by ear.

Antithesis

Paragraph 29 sets an “18th century Constitution” against a “20th century paper shredder,” then ends with “reason, and not passion.” The first contrast shows what is at stake if the committee fails to act. The second tells members how to act, with “guide” repeated three times.

People & audiences

Barbara Jordan

Speaker

A first-term member of the committee from Texas who calls herself an inquisitor (paragraph 4). She speaks as someone once left out of “We, the people” and now bound to defend the Constitution.

The Chairman and the committee

Immediate audience

The members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by the Chairman she thanks in paragraphs 1 and 2. She corrects some of them in paragraph 5 and answers arguments made earlier that day in paragraphs 12 and 14.

The American people

Wider audience

The public watching the debate. In paragraph 15 she recalls that they waited eight hours to learn whether their President would obey the Supreme Court.

The President

The accused

Richard Nixon, never named in the statement and called only “the President.” Paragraphs 18 to 27 list his actions: knowledge of payments to defendants, meetings with Henry Petersen, false public statements and advice to aides to commit perjury.

Hamilton, Madison and Story

Authorities cited

Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 65), James Madison and Justice Joseph Story supply the tests for impeachment in paragraphs 5, 8, 17, 20 and 26. Jordan treats their words as the standard the President must be measured against.

Hunt, Petersen and Ehrlichman

People in the evidence

E. Howard Hunt, whose earlier activities the President knew of (paragraph 13); Henry Petersen, who met the President 27 times about Watergate (paragraph 19); and Ehrlichman, whom the President told to “do whatever is necessary” (paragraph 21).

Big ideas in Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

A Constitution that grew to include herImpeachment as a duty, not a weaponEvidence against evasionReason over passionThe public trust

A Constitution that grew to include her

Jordan says the document of 1787 left her out, and that amendment, interpretation and court decision brought her in (paragraph 3). Her faith is in a Constitution that can change and correct itself, which is why she will not let it be subverted.

Impeachment as a duty, not a weapon

Jordan insists impeachment must stay within the constitutional term “high crime and misdemeanors” (paragraph 9) and must not be used for petty reasons (paragraph 11). She presents it as a safeguard the Framers built, to be used carefully but used.

Evidence against evasion

Much of the speech is a list of what the President knew and did (paragraphs 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 24 and 27). Jordan answers the claim that the evidence is thin by piling up specific facts, dates and numbers.

Reason over passion

She quotes Hamilton’s warning that impeachment will agitate the passions and divide the community (paragraph 8), and she ends by saying that reason, not passion, must guide the decision (paragraph 29). Her calm, lawyerly method is itself an example of what she asks for.

The public trust

Impeachment, as Jordan reads the Framers, is about the abuse or violation of a public trust (paragraph 5) and about officers who “behave amiss or betray their public trust” (paragraphs 23 and 25). The President’s power is held in trust for the people whose rights and liberties it must protect.

Key images

“We, the people”

The opening words of the Preamble stand for membership in the nation. Jordan quotes them three times in paragraph 3 to trace her own path from outside the Constitution to inside it.

The paper shredder

In paragraph 29 the shredder stands for a Constitution that has become meaningless. The modern machine set against an 18th century document shows how completely the old promise would be destroyed if it could not reach the President.

Repeated words and ideas

Knowing. Jordan returns again and again to knowledge: what the President “did know” on June 23 (paragraphs 12 and 13), that he “had knowledge” of the payments (paragraph 18), and the committee’s repeated “We know” (paragraphs 19, 21 and 29). The pattern answers the defense that the evidence is uncertain.

The Framers’ words. Quotations from the Framers and later authorities run through the whole statement, and several return a second time, some word for word and some nearly so (paragraphs 17 and 19, 20 and 22, 23 and 25, 26 and 28). The motif keeps the founding generation present as judges of the case.

Tensions and counterarguments

Counterargument. Earlier that day members were told that the evidence of the President’s misuse of the CIA was thin (paragraph 12). Jordan answers with what he knew on June 23, 1972: that the money found on a burglar came from his re-election committee, and what E. Howard Hunt had done before (paragraphs 12 and 13).

Counterargument. Some argued the committee should wait for new evidence from the President (paragraph 14). Jordan replies that there has been no sign of any, that the committee’s subpoena is outstanding, and that the country had just waited eight hours to learn whether he would obey the Supreme Court (paragraph 15).

Ideals vs. practice. The Constitution charges the President with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, yet Jordan says he counseled aides to commit perjury and concealed a surreptitious entry while publicly displaying his cooperation (paragraph 27).

Key quotes

“But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.””

Paragraph 3. The sentence turns a story of exclusion into a statement of loyalty. It explains why Jordan values a Constitution that was not written with her in mind.

“My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.”

Paragraph 4. Three near-synonyms build to an absolute. The repetition makes her commitment sound unconditional, which gives her authority when she later judges the President by that Constitution.

“I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”

Paragraph 4. The list climbs from shrinking to overthrowing to ruin. It casts the committee’s vote as active defense rather than neutral review.

“So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big because the task we have before us is a big one.”

Paragraph 11. Plain words answer the charge that impeachment is partisan point-scoring. The contrast of petty and big raises the stakes of the vote.

“If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder.”

Paragraph 29. The most quoted line of the statement. The conditional forces a choice: either the Constitution works in this case or it is worth nothing.

“It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.”

Paragraph 29. The antithesis and the repeated “guide” close the argument calmly. After a severe charge, Jordan asks for judgment rather than anger.

How it ends

The conclusion of Statement on the Articles of Impeachment, explained

The statement ends in paragraph 29 with a conditional sentence, a question and a command. First Jordan says that if the impeachment provision will not reach these offenses, then perhaps the 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. The image is shocking on purpose. After a long list of the Framers’ tests and the President’s conduct, she makes the committee see what a refusal to act would mean: the document itself would stop mattering.

Then she states the question in one sentence: has the President committed offenses and planned, directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? She adds, “That is the question,” and follows with short, flat sentences: “We know that. We know the question.” The repetition of “We know” echoes her earlier answer to members who said the evidence was thin. The committee does not lack knowledge, she implies, only the will to use it.

The last sentence of the argument asks for reason, not passion, to guide the deliberations, the debate and the decision. That brings her back to Hamilton’s warning in paragraph 8 that impeachment would agitate the passions and divide the country into parties. She has shown both the danger and the way through it. Her last words, in paragraph 30, are the routine courtesy of yielding back her time. A speech that began with “We, the people” ends with a member doing her part in the constitutional process she has just defended.

Common misreadings

MythJordan argues that voting for impeachment means voting to remove the President.

ActuallyShe calls that a misreading of the Constitution (paragraph 5). The House accuses and the Senate judges, and the Framers did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

MythJordan really believes the Framers left her out by mistake.

ActuallyShe says she felt that way “for many years” (paragraph 3). The line is ironic. Her point is that the Constitution of 1787 excluded her, and that she was included only through amendment, interpretation and court decision.

MythThe text on this page is exactly what Jordan said on television.

ActuallyThis page prints the official committee print published by the Government Printing Office. The recording differs in small ways, such as “An hyperbole” where the print has “I believe hyperbole” (paragraph 4), and in one whole passage in paragraph 21. There the recording has a sentence about September 3rd and a meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young, while the print has the August 1971 instruction to Ehrlichman. The print also adds citations she did not say aloud.

AP practice a rhetorical analysis prompt in the exam's style

On July 25, 1974, Representative Barbara Jordan of Texas spoke to the House Judiciary Committee during its televised debate on whether to recommend the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. Read the statement carefully. Write an essay that analyzes the rhetorical choices Jordan makes to persuade her fellow committee members that impeachment is a constitutional duty rather than a partisan act.

What a strong response notices

The personal account of being left out of “We, the people” in paragraph 3, which builds ethos for a junior member defending the Constitution.
The correction in paragraph 5 that a vote to impeach is not a vote to remove, which lowers the bar for hesitant members.
The reliance on Federalist No. 65, Madison, Story and the ratifying conventions in paragraphs 5 to 10 and 17 to 26, which makes the standard nonpartisan.
The announced juxtaposition in paragraph 16 and the alternating criteria and evidence in paragraphs 17 to 28, with repeated quotations in paragraphs 22, 25 and 28.
The paper shredder conditional and the call for reason over passion in paragraph 29, which frame the vote as a test of the Constitution itself.

Practice prompt written by StoryBites, not taken from a College Board exam. See the AP Language free-response guide for how answers are scored.

Test yourself

1. Why does Jordan say she was not included in “We, the people” in 1787?

2. What does Jordan say a member voting for an Article of Impeachment does NOT have to believe?

3. What does Jordan announce she will do in paragraph 16?

4. What happened “on yesterday,” according to paragraph 15?

5. Where does Jordan say the 18th century Constitution should go if impeachment cannot reach these offenses?

Flashcards flip, self-grade, and the deck remembers what you know

tap to flip

Answer

Explain it like I’m 12

In 1974 Congress was deciding whether President Nixon had broken the rules badly enough to be impeached. Barbara Jordan was a new member of the committee doing the deciding. She said that when the Constitution was first written, people like her were left out, and later the country changed so she was included. She read what the country’s founders had said about when a President should be impeached. Then she listed things the President had done, one next to the other, so people could compare them. She said that if the Constitution could not deal with this, it might as well be shredded. She asked everyone to decide with calm thinking, not anger.

Compare & connect

The Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson

Both texts measure a chief executive against founding principles and then list his specific abuses. Jefferson charges a king; Jordan charges an elected President using the Constitution’s own tests.

I Have a Dream

Martin Luther King Jr.

King and Jordan both begin from founding words that did not at first include Black Americans. King demands that the nation honor its promise; Jordan, having been included, defends the document against a President.

The American Promise (“We Shall Overcome”)

Lyndon B. Johnson

Another Texan speaking to Congress about the Constitution and about who counts as one of the people. Johnson in 1965 asks Congress to protect voting rights; Jordan nine years later asks a committee to protect the Constitution itself.

Discussion and essay prompts:

💬 Discussion questions

What is Barbara Jordan’s statement on the articles of impeachment about
What did Barbara Jordan mean by we the people
Why did Barbara Jordan say the Constitution should go into a paper shredder
How does Statement on the Articles of Impeachment explore the theme of a Constitution that grew to include her?
How does Statement on the Articles of Impeachment explore the theme of impeachment as a duty, not a weapon?
What is the central conflict in Statement on the Articles of Impeachment, and how does it shape the ending?

✎ Essay prompts

Analyze how Barbara Jordan develops the theme of a Constitution that grew to include her in Statement on the Articles of Impeachment. Support your argument with specific evidence from the text.
Examine the significance of “We, the people” in Statement on the Articles of Impeachment. What does it represent, and how does it deepen the work’s meaning?
How does Barbara Jordan use personal testimony and irony to shape the reader’s experience of Statement on the Articles of Impeachment?
Some readers assume that jordan argues that voting for impeachment means voting to remove the President. Argue for or against this interpretation, using evidence from the text.

Key questions students ask

What is Barbara Jordan’s statement on the articles of impeachment about
What did Barbara Jordan mean by we the people
Why did Barbara Jordan say the Constitution should go into a paper shredder
What rhetorical devices does Barbara Jordan use in her impeachment speech
Who was Barbara Jordan speaking to in July 1974
Does voting to impeach mean removing the President

Analysis is original StoryBites commentary. The full text and quotations follow the official committee print of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment debate (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), which differs in places from Jordan’s words as delivered. As a work of the United States government, it is in the public domain.