Barbara Jordan speaking into microphones

Articles, with questions

My Faith in the Constitution Is Whole

Barbara Jordan, July 25, 1974 · reading 6

The People’s Share · GED Reasoning Through Language Arts · reading nonfiction

Part 1

Before you read

A real document: the statement Barbara Jordan, a member of Congress from Texas, made on July 25, 1974, when a committee of the House of Representatives was deciding whether President Richard Nixon should be impeached. It is printed here in her own words.

Kind of text
A speech: Barbara Jordan’s statement to the House Judiciary Committee, reprinted in her own words from the committee’s printed record.
What to expect
She spoke it aloud, so some sentences repeat words, the way people do when they speak. She quotes the writers of the Constitution again and again, and near the end she asks the committee a question it must answer.
Length
About 900 words, in 11 paragraphs, with two parts of the statement left out. A reading passage on the test is 450 to 900 words.
Time
About 8 minutes to read, and 20 for the questions.
What was happening

Watergate. On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee, in the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. Over the next two years, investigations turned up connections between the burglars and President Nixon’s campaign for reelection, and evidence that the President had approved a plan to hide the White House’s connection to the break-in. The whole scandal is called Watergate.

Impeachment. The Constitution lets Congress remove a president for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It takes two steps. First, the House of Representatives votes on charges, called articles of impeachment. If a majority votes yes, the president is impeached, which means formally accused. Second, the Senate holds a trial. Two thirds of the senators present must vote to convict for the president to be removed. Before the whole House votes, its Judiciary Committee looks at the evidence and votes on the articles.

That week. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of his conversations in the White House. That same day, the Judiciary Committee began its debate in public, before a large television audience. Jordan spoke the next day. Within a week, the committee approved three articles of impeachment. On August 9, 1974, before the whole House could vote, Nixon resigned.

Barbara Jordan (1936–1996) was born in Houston, Texas, and became a lawyer. In 1966 she was elected to the Texas Senate, the first African American state senator in Texas since 1883. In 1972 she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Houston, the first Black woman ever elected to Congress from the South. When she gave this statement, she was 38 years old and in her first term.

Words you will meet

Preambleparagraph 1
the opening sentence of the Constitution, which begins “We the People of the United States”
eloquentparagraph 1
well and powerfully said
amendmentparagraph 1
a change added to the Constitution
inquisitorparagraph 2
a person whose job is to ask questions and investigate
hyperboleparagraph 2
exaggeration: saying more than is true, for effect. Her sentence means that even an exaggeration could not overstate how serious she feels.
solemnessparagraph 2
seriousness (more often spelled solemnness)
diminution, subversionparagraph 2
diminution is making something smaller or weaker; subversion is weakening or overthrowing something from within
Federalist No. 65paragraph 3
one of 85 essays, most of them first printed in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788, written to urge New York to approve the Constitution. No. 65, by Alexander Hamilton, is about impeachment.
jurisdictionparagraph 3
the power to hear and judge certain matters
public trustparagraph 3
the duty of a public official to use power for the people, and not for himself
Article of Impeachmentparagraph 4
one formal charge against an official
encroachmentparagraph 4
taking over, little by little, power that belongs to someone else
the Executiveparagraph 4
the President, the branch of government that carries out the laws
the Framersparagraph 4
the men who wrote the Constitution in 1787
astuteparagraph 4
wise and sharp
bridleparagraph 5
the straps on a horse’s head used to control it; here, to hold back
inquestparagraph 5
an official investigation
tyrannicalparagraph 5
using power cruelly and without limits
separation of powersparagraph 6
the division of the national government into three branches: Congress, the President, and the courts
maximparagraph 6
a short statement of a general rule
maladministrationparagraph 6
running a government badly
ratification conventionparagraph 6
a meeting held in each state, from 1787 to 1790, to vote on whether to approve the Constitution
oppressionparagraph 7
cruel or unjust use of power
immunityparagraph 7
freedom from punishment
inimicalparagraph 7
hostile, unfriendly
Woodrow Wilsonparagraph 8
president of the United States from 1913 to 1921; before that, a professor who wrote about how Congress works
indignationparagraph 8
anger at something unfair
appropriationsparagraph 9
money that Congress votes to spend
subvertparagraph 10
to weaken or overthrow from within
perjuryparagraph 10
lying under oath
grand juryparagraph 10
a group of citizens who hear evidence in secret and decide whether someone should be charged with a crime
surreptitiousparagraph 10
secret, done so as not to be seen
acquiescedparagraph 11
went along with something without objecting
forthwithparagraph 11
right away
deliberationsparagraph 11
careful discussion before a decision

The statement

My Faith in the Constitution Is Whole

Barbara Jordan, to the House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974

1Earlier 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.”

2Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness 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.

3“Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?” (Federalist No. 65) The subject 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.

4It 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.

5We 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 confided 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.

6The 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.” “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.

8The 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.” Of 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.”

9Commonsense 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.

. . .

10James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” The 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. “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

11If 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.

Printed in her own words, from the committee’s printed record. The paragraph numbers are added for the questions. Her first words, thanking the committee’s chairman, are left out, and so is the part marked “. . .”, where she went through the evidence against the President. The note at the end of this page explains.

Part 2

Questions like the test’s

Eight questions, in the kinds the test uses. Press Check after each one. If you miss, the page tells you why the answer you chose is tempting, and you can try again.

1. Which statement best expresses Jordan’s central claim?

2. In paragraph 1, Jordan says that in 1787 she “was not included in that ‘We, the people,’” but that she has “finally been included.” Why does she begin her statement this way?

3. Choose the words that best complete the sentence. drop-down

In paragraph 2, when Jordan says “Today I am an inquisitor,” she means that her job that day is to .

4. In paragraph 4, Jordan says the Framers “did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.” How does this support her point in that paragraph?

5. Jordan supports her claims with the words of other people. Which two of these does she quote in this excerpt? choose two

6. In paragraphs 5 to 8, Jordan quotes Hamilton, the Federal Convention of 1787, and the state ratification conventions. Why does she use these sources?

7. Put the parts of Jordan’s statement in the order she gives them. Choose 1 for the first and 5 for the last. put in order

Why impeachment must not be used for petty reasons.
The question the committee must answer, and how it must decide.
Her own place in “We, the people,” and her faith in the Constitution.
The President’s actions, set against a standard for impeachment.
What impeachment is for, in the words of the Framers and the ratification conventions.

8. The statement ends: “It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.” What is the purpose of this sentence?

Part 3

For talking it over

These have no single right answer. They are for class, or for thinking about on your own.

  1. Jordan says she was left out of “We, the people” in 1787 and was included later “through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision.” Who else was left out in 1787? What changed, and who made it change?
    A place to start

    Think about who could vote in 1787, and about the amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War, and in 1920.

  2. Jordan says impeachment must not be used “for petty reasons,” and that “reason, and not passion” must guide the decision. Is it possible for members of Congress to set aside party feeling when they judge a president of their own party, or of the other party? What would help them do it?
  3. “We need one branch to check the others.” Why did the people who wrote the Constitution want one part of the government to be able to check another? Can you think of a check on power in your own life: at work, in a union, in a building, in a family?
    A place to start

    Think about what can happen when one person has power and no one can question it.

Part 4

Write about it

Choose one of these and write in the box below. Put the number of the one you chose at the top. The box saves your writing as you go, under your code, and you can send it to Myles when it is ready.

  1. 1. Explain it

    In one paragraph, explain what impeachment is for, according to Barbara Jordan. Use at least two of the sources she quotes, and say in your own words what each one means.

    Start with one sentence that sums up her view. Then give the sources, one at a time. Define any hard word you use.

  2. 2. How does she persuade?

    Jordan uses her own story, the words of the Constitution’s writers, and a closing question to make her case. Explain how she builds her argument. Which of these do you find most convincing, and why?

    Quote at least two places in the statement. This is the kind of thinking the test’s essay asks for: not whether you agree with her, but how well she supports her claim.

Where the text comes from

The statement is printed in Debate on Articles of Impeachment: Hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), pages 110–113. A statement made by a member of Congress as part of her official work belongs to the public, and anyone may reprint it. The text here follows that printed record, as reproduced by BlackPast.org and checked against the printed volume’s own text where it could be searched online. It was also compared with two transcripts of the recording of her speech, from American Rhetoric and from the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

The recording and the printed record differ in small ways, because members could correct their remarks before they were printed. For example, on the recording she says “An hyperbole would not be fictional,” and the printed record has “I believe hyperbole would not be fictional.” Where they differ, this page follows the printed record. In two places the printed record has a typing error, and this page prints the words she spoke: “confided” in paragraph 5 (printed as “confined”) and “abuse or violation” in paragraph 3 (printed as “abuse of violation”). The spelling “solemness” is the printed record’s.

The full statement is about 1,500 words. Left out here are her opening words of thanks to the chairman and, at the “. . .” mark, about 600 words in which she sets the evidence against more quotations, among them an earlier quotation from James Madison. That is why paragraph 10 begins “James Madison again.” Like many speakers, Jordan quoted from memory or in summary. The words “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution” sum up a point made at the Constitutional Convention on September 8, 1787, by George Mason, as James Madison recorded it in his notes: “Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason.” The same notes record the debate over the word “maladministration” that she mentions in paragraph 6.

The background was checked against: the U.S. House of Representatives’ History, Art & Archives biography of Barbara Jordan; the U.S. Senate’s history of the Watergate investigation; and the Constitution itself (Article I, Sections 2 and 3, and Article II, Section 4).

The pictures on this page

☞ For the Constitution and the rights in it, see Rights on Paper. The skills in these questions are taught one at a time in the quizzes: Quiz 1, main idea; Quiz 5, citing evidence; Quiz 7, words in context; Quiz 10, structure. Back to all the articles.

Answers

1 D · 2 B · 3 ask questions and look into the evidence for the nation · 4 C · 5 A and C · 6 A · 7 (top to bottom) 3, 5, 1, 4, 2 · 8 C