[W]e ought to try to take the same stance of principled political neutrality that we hope to see taken by the House and the Senate as they go about their work. This is not easy, particularly as to questions that have no certain answers; it is always tempting to resolve such questions in favor of the immediate political result that is palatable to us, for one never can definitely be proved wrong, and so one is free to allow one’s prejudices to assume the guise of reason. The best way to combat this tendency is to ask ourselves whether we would have answered the same question the same way if it came up with respect to a president toward whom we felt oppositely from the way we feel toward the president threatened with removal. One further point: it is the cardinal principle at least of American constitutional interpretation that the Constitution is to be interpreted so as to be workable and reasonable. . . . Applying it to doubtful questions regarding impeachment, in this book for the laity, I shall give chief emphasis to arguments of a practical cast.
Black, Charles L., Jr. Impeachment: A Handbook, New Edition (p. 5- 6). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
