[1] For the mode of conducting impeachments, see pages 131 and 331.
To have impeachments tried by a court of law would be unwise for several reasons: In the first place, judges should be kept free from political contests, in order that they may retain the proper judicial frame of mind. In the second place, judges are appointed by the executive, who may be the one impeached. Lastly, a judge is himself subject to impeachment.
[2] To enhance the solemnity of the occasion. The British House of Lords when sitting as a high court of impeachment is not under oath. But courts usually are.
[3] The vice-president, having interest in the result, would be disqualified. The chief justice, from the dignity of his station and his great experience in law, seems the fittest person to preside on such a grave occasion. Except in this single instance, however, the vice-president presides in trials on impeachment.
[4] In an ordinary court, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. To require similar agreement in this case would be to make it next to impossible ever to convict. To allow a bare majority to convict would be to place too little protection over a public officer.
[5] But for this provision abuses of power might occur in times of political excitement and strife. The question which the Senate settles is simply whether, in view of the evidence, the accused is or is not worthy to hold public office.
[6] This provision was inserted to prevent an official who had been deposed for crime from pleading the principle that "No one can be twice tried and punished for the same offense."