The Responsibility of Impeachment
Barbara Jordan
Reading Tasks: Students will closely read what the text is saying and make inferences when necessary.
Students will determine central ideas and analyze how they are developed. Students will analyze the
how and why this document was written, and how the ideas are developed in writer. Students will
evaluate the arguments and claims within the text.
Vocabulary Tasks: While meaning of the words will initially be derived with help from the teacher, the
meaning within the context of the passage will be discerned by students as they read the speech.
Discussion Tasks: Students will evaluate the main points that the speaker is making. Students will
analyze by the document was written, and how the ideas are developed in writing.
Writing Tasks: Students will produce clear writing which is developed with an essential question in
mind. Students will gather evidence from their reading to write in response to the anchor questions.
Students will clarify their writings over the course of the lesson. Students will draw evidence from the
primary source in all their writings within the unit.
Essential Question(s): 1.What allowed Jordan to be included in “We, the people”? 2. How is the concept
of checks and balances applied to the impeachment process?
Text Selection (Background): Excerpt of Barbara Jordan’s “The Responsibility of Impeachment” found at
website: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm.
Target Span: High School Civics (9th-12th Grades)
Reading Standards hit: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R8
Writing Standards hit: W1, W4, W5, and W9
Civics High School Content Expectations: 1.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.5, 3.2.1, and 3.2.3
Directions/Introduction
As written, this lesson will guide students through multiple days of looking at a historical document. It is
meant to be a teachable model, but is freely available to be changed based on your students own
unique needs.
What should be understood however, is that with the Common Core State Standards covering literacy in
Social Studies, we need to give our students rich, complex texts in order to deepen their understanding
of our important content, as well as give them opportunities to practice literacy across the content
areas. If this is their first time, it may be rough, but students will get better at it the more practice they
have.
We chose to follow the advice of Mike Schmoker, who, in his book Focus: Elevating the Essentials to
Radically Improve Student Learning, recommends that any vocabulary which could hinder a student’s
understanding be taught in advance (Schmoker, 2011). The Core standards call for students to be able
to identify the meaning of words by the context in which they are used (National Governors Association,
2011), and by pre-teaching the vocabulary here, students still have to do this important step, even
though the vocabulary was taught in advance.
In trying to provide a research based model, for vocabulary we’re following Marzano. Marzano
identifies six steps to teaching vocabulary. We will be combining two steps (provide and restate) and
eliminating step 6 which is practicing with games (Marzano & Pickering, 2005). You may adapt the
lesson to include this step if you choose.
Section/Stage 1 Teacher Page
Text Under Discussion
Vocabulary
Directions for Teachers
ASK STUDENTS: What can you infer about
Ms. Jordan’s feelings from the tone of her
first statement? What is she about to
discuss?
Eloquent
Why was Ms. Jordan originally not included
in the phrase “we the people”?
I join 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.
Earlier 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 the document was completed on the
seventeenth of September 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."
Today, 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.
...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.
Why is she included now?
Inquisitor
Hyperbole
Diminution
What does Ms. Jordan feel could happen to
the Constitution without the intervention of
Congress?
Subversion
Jurisdiction
Paraphrase this paragraph. What does she
mean by the last sentence?
Misreading
Assert
Check
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 Encroachment
establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature,
the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse
Astute
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.
We 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. 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 need
one branch to check the others."
“bridle”
Explain what Ms. Jordan means by “They did
not make the accusers and the judges the
same person.” What does she mean by
calling the framers “astute”?
In your own words, what does she mean by
“striking a delicate balance…Executive”?
Inquest
Tyrannical
Channeled
What was the nature of impeachment? To
what was it meant to be limited?
Maxim
Discounted
“maladministration”
Closing writing/discussion piece:
How did Barbara Jordan see the importance
of checks and balances in the Constitution?
Stage 1 – Additional Information/Instructions/Performance Tasks
Student Page
Text Under Discussion
Vocabulary
I join 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.
Earlier 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 the document was completed on the
seventeenth of September 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."
Today, 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.
...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.
Eloquent
Inquisitor
Hyperbole
Diminution
Subversion
Jurisdiction
Misreading
Assert
Check
My Thoughts/Notes
The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to
Encroachment
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,
Astute
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.
We 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. 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 need one branch to check the others.”
“bridle”
Inquest
Tyrannical
Channeled
Maxim
Discounted
“maladministration”