🚨 Dismissal of Impeachment: Constitutional Significance Through Procedures and Cases

Today Korean Social News | 2025.03.25

📌 Han Duck-soo's Impeachment Dismissed... Constitutional Court Rules Insufficient Grounds for Removal Despite Some Constitutional Violations

💬 The Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment of Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on the 24th. The National Assembly passed the impeachment motion citing five reasons, including abetting martial law and refusing to appoint Constitutional Court judges, but the Court ruled that even if there were some constitutional violations, they were not serious enough to warrant removal. As a result, Prime Minister Han returned to his duties after 87 days, and the government is expected to accelerate the normalization of state affairs.

Summary

• Impeachment is a procedure where the National Assembly demands the removal of high-ranking officials who have violated the Constitution or laws, serving as a democratic mechanism that realizes the principle of checks and balances.
• It is a two-stage process where the Constitutional Court makes the final judgment after the National Assembly's impeachment resolution, requiring a majority proposal and approval by 2/3 or more of assembly members for presidential impeachment.
• If impeachment is upheld, the official is immediately removed and prohibited from holding public office for 5 years, but criminal liability is pursued through separate procedures.

1️⃣ Definition

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure in which the National Assembly demands the removal of the President or high-ranking officials who have seriously violated the Constitution or laws while performing their duties. Simply put, it is a system where the National Assembly, representing the people, holds officials who have broken the law accountable.

Impeachment proceeds in a two-stage process, beginning with a resolution by the National Assembly and culminating in a final decision by the Constitutional Court. It is an important democratic mechanism that checks abuse of power and strengthens the accountability of public officials.

💡 Why is this important?

• It is a constitutional mechanism that realizes checks and balances against those in power.
• It strengthens public officials' duty and responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
• It serves as the last line of defense for protecting the Constitution and the rule of law.

2️⃣ Types and Procedures of Impeachment

📕 Subjects and Requirements of Impeachment

• The subjects of impeachment are clearly specified in the Constitution. The subjects of impeachment are clearly defined in Article 65 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. First, the President is the main subject of impeachment. As the highest authority in the country, the President has the duty to observe and protect the Constitution and laws, and becomes subject to impeachment when violating them. Second, the Prime Minister and Cabinet members are also subjects of impeachment. As key decision-makers within the executive branch, they can be held accountable when violating the Constitution or laws in the course of their duties. Third, heads of executive ministries (ministers) are included as subjects of impeachment. As leaders responsible for each administrative department, they must bear legal responsibility during the performance of their duties. Fourth, members of constitutional bodies such as Constitutional Court justices, judges, members of the National Election Commission, the Chairperson of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and commissioners are also subjects of impeachment. As their independence is guaranteed by the Constitution, they can only lose their positions through impeachment. Fifth, other public officials as determined by law may also be subject to impeachment.

• The requirement for impeachment is violation of the Constitution or laws. Specific requirements must be met for impeachment to begin. First, there must be relevance to official duties. Impeachment applies only when public officials violate the Constitution or laws "in the performance of their duties." Private misconduct or illegal acts unrelated to duties do not constitute grounds for impeachment. Second, there must be a violation of the Constitution or laws. Simple policy failures or errors in political judgment do not constitute grounds for impeachment; specific violations of constitutional or legal provisions must be proven. Third, there must be seriousness. Not all legal violations lead to impeachment; the Constitutional Court judges whether the violation is "serious enough to warrant removal." Fourth, there must be objective evidence. Violations must be proven through objective and specific evidence, not mere suspicions or speculation. Fifth, due process must be followed. Impeachment must proceed according to the procedures established by the Constitution and laws (Assembly quorum requirements, proposal requirements, etc.).

📕 National Assembly Procedures for Impeachment

• There are procedures for proposing and deliberating on impeachment motions. Impeachment proceeds through the following procedures in the National Assembly. First is the stage of proposing an impeachment motion. An impeachment motion against the President requires the proposal of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly, while impeachment motions against other public officials require the proposal of one-third or more of the total members. The impeachment motion must specify the name and position of the subject, the alleged facts, relevant constitutional and legal provisions, and evidence. Second is the stage of examination by the relevant standing committee. The proposed impeachment motion is referred to the relevant standing committee, such as the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, for examination. The standing committee may hold hearings to hear testimony from witnesses or persons of reference if necessary. Third is the stage of submission to and debate in the plenary session. After examination by the standing committee, the impeachment motion is presented to the plenary session for debate. In this process, the subject of impeachment may be given the opportunity to appear and explain their position. Fourth is the voting stage. After the plenary debate, a vote is conducted by secret ballot. Impeachment of the President requires the approval of two-thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly, while impeachment of other public officials requires the approval of a majority of the total members. Fifth is the stage of resolution and transmission. When an impeachment motion is passed, the Speaker promptly transmits it to the Constitutional Court and the subject of impeachment.

• The impeachment resolution has effects and suspends authority. When an impeachment motion is passed in the National Assembly, the following effects occur. First, there is the effect of suspension of duties. When impeachment is resolved, the subject's duties are immediately suspended. This is to prevent the possibility of additional violations of the Constitution or laws by suspending the exercise of authority by the public official until the final decision of the Constitutional Court. Second, the acting presidential system is activated. When impeachment against the President is resolved, according to Article 71 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister assumes the role of Acting President. This is a constitutional mechanism to minimize gaps in state affairs. Third, there is the effect of referral to the Constitutional Court for adjudication. The National Assembly's impeachment resolution has the legal effect of requesting adjudication by the Constitutional Court. When an impeachment motion is transmitted to the Constitutional Court, the Court must initiate adjudication procedures. Fourth, there is the effect of prohibition of resignation. Even if the impeached public official resigns during the adjudication, the impeachment procedure continues. This is to prevent the avoidance of accountability and the effect of prohibition of performing duties through impeachment. Fifth, there is irreversibility. Once resolved, an impeachment motion cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn by the National Assembly, and its effect is determined only by the adjudication of the Constitutional Court.

📕 Constitutional Court's Impeachment Trial Procedures

• The Constitutional Court has the final decision-making authority for impeachment trials. After the National Assembly's impeachment resolution, the Constitutional Court conducts impeachment trials through the following procedures. First is the initiation of adjudication. When the Constitutional Court receives an impeachment motion from the National Assembly, it assigns the case and initiates adjudication procedures. A case number is assigned, and the justices begin reviewing the case. Second is the preparation for arguments. The impeachment committee (from the National Assembly) and the respondent (the subject of impeachment) submit preparatory briefs and collect and organize evidence. The Constitutional Court establishes plans for evidence investigation and witness examination if necessary. Third is the argument stage. The claims and evidence of both sides are heard in open court, and witness examinations are conducted. The National Assembly side argues for the legitimacy of the impeachment, while the respondent side argues for their innocence or minor illegality. Fourth is the deliberation stage. After the conclusion of arguments, the justices conduct deliberations in private. They review the violations of the Constitution and laws by issue and their seriousness, and vote for the final decision. Fifth is the pronouncement stage. Based on the results of the deliberation, a decision is written, and the final decision is announced in open court. Impeachment trials require the approval of 6 or more out of 9 justices for an upholding (confirmation of impeachment) decision.

• Impeachment trial decisions have various types and effects. The decisions of the Constitutional Court's impeachment trials have the following types and effects. First is the upholding decision. This is a decision made when the Constitutional Court determines that the grounds for impeachment are recognized and removal is appropriate. In this case, the respondent is immediately removed from their public office. The removed public official is restricted from taking public office for 5 years from the date of the decision's pronouncement. Second is the dismissal decision. This is a decision made when there is no violation of the Constitution or laws, or when, even if there is a violation, it is not considered serious enough to warrant removal. When a dismissal decision is made, the respondent's suspension of duties is immediately lifted, allowing them to return to their duties. Third is the rejection decision. This is a decision made when there are significant defects in the impeachment procedure, or when the interests of adjudication have been lost, such as when the respondent has already died. Fourth, regarding the characteristics of impeachment trial decisions, there is finality. There is no appeal procedure for the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and they have binding force on all state agencies and citizens. Fifth, there is the relationship with criminal responsibility. Impeachment trials aim at removal from public office, and criminal responsibility for the same act is pursued through separate criminal trial procedures.

Key Procedures and Requirements of Impeachment

1. National Assembly Stage
   • Proposal: Majority of total members for presidential impeachment, 1/3 of total members for other officials
   • Resolution: Approval by 2/3 or more of total members for presidential impeachment, majority of total members for other officials
   • Effect: Immediate suspension of duties of the subject, transmission to the Constitutional Court
2. Constitutional Court Stage
   • Adjudication: Preparation for arguments, evidence investigation, conducting arguments
   • Decision: Upholding with approval of 6 or more out of 9 justices
   • Effect: Immediate removal and restriction from taking public office for 5 years if upheld
3. Grounds for Impeachment
   • Violation of the Constitution or laws during the performance of duties
   • Simple policy failures or political judgment errors do not apply
   • Seriousness of the violation required
4. Representative Cases
   • President Roh Moo-hyun (2004): Dismissed
   • President Park Geun-hye (2017): Upheld
   • Prime Minister Han Duck-soo (2025): Dismissed

3️⃣ Impact and Cases of Impeachment

✅ Significance and Impact of Impeachment

• Impeachment has important constitutional and political significance. Impeachment goes beyond a simple legal procedure and has the following important meanings. First, it is the ultimate means of controlling power. It functions as a check mechanism against absolute power by allowing high-ranking officials who have violated the Constitution and laws to be removed through legal procedures. Second, it is a symbol of constitutional protection. It confirms the supremacy of the Constitution by realizing the principle that public officials must comply with the Constitution and laws, and holding them accountable for violations. Third, it is the realization of representative democracy. The process by which the National Assembly, a representative body of the people, holds illegal public officials accountable on behalf of the sovereign people is a core operational method of representative democracy. Fourth, it embodies the rule of law. It is a system that puts into practice the principle of the rule of law, which states that no one, no matter how high their position, can be above the law. Fifth, it has the function of strengthening political accountability. It has a preventive effect of making public officials more carefully comply with the Constitution and laws when performing their duties.

• Impeachment has various impacts on the state and society. Impeachment has the following impacts depending on the process and results. First, it affects state administration. The suspension of duties due to impeachment resolution can cause a vacuum or confusion in state affairs, and especially in the case of presidential impeachment, it has a significant impact on overall state affairs. Second, it affects political conflict and integration. Impeachment can cause acute conflict between political circles and the public, but overcoming crises through constitutional procedures can be an opportunity to enhance the maturity of democracy. Third, it affects the constitutional order. Constitutional issues revealed during the impeachment process become important references for future constitutional operation and legal system improvement. Fourth, it affects international status. The legitimacy of the impeachment process and peaceful transfer of power are important factors determining Korea's democratic status in the international community. Fifth, it affects public perception. The process and results of impeachment become important opportunities to change people's political participation and perception of constitutional values.

✅ Major Domestic Impeachment Cases

• President Roh Moo-hyun's impeachment (2004) was the first presidential impeachment case. The impeachment process of President Roh Moo-hyun, the first presidential impeachment case in Korean constitutional history, proceeded as follows. First, regarding the background and course, on March 12, 2004, the then opposition parties, the Grand National Party and the Democratic Party, proposed an impeachment motion against President Roh for reasons such as violation of the Election Law (statements supporting a specific party), violation of the Constitution, and corruption among close associates. The National Assembly passed the impeachment motion on the same day with the approval of all 193 out of 193 attending members, and President Roh's duties were immediately suspended. Second, regarding the Constitutional Court's adjudication process, the Constitutional Court conducted arguments and evidence investigation for about two months, examining allegations such as Election Law violations, violation of the President's duty of political neutrality, and state confusion. Third, regarding the decision, on May 14, 2004, the Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment, ruling that although multiple illegal acts were recognized, they did not constitute "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal." Fourth, regarding the significance and impact, this case, as Korea's first attempt at presidential impeachment, has significance in confirming the possibility of constitutional procedures functioning. It also established for the first time the standard for upholding impeachment: "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal."

• President Park Geun-hye's impeachment (2016-2017) was the first presidential impeachment case to be upheld. The impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, the first upheld presidential impeachment case in constitutional history, proceeded as follows. First, regarding the background and course, after the "Choi Soon-sil State Affairs Intervention" allegations were raised in October 2016, nationwide candlelight demonstrations continued, and on December 9, the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion with the approval of 234 out of 300 total members. The reasons for impeachment included violations of the Constitution and laws, infringement of citizens' basic rights, and state affairs operation by an unofficial organization. Second, regarding the Constitutional Court's adjudication process, the Constitutional Court conducted 17 arguments over about 3 months, focusing on examining allegations such as the President's violation of constitutional duties, leakage of state secrets, and abuse of authority. Third, regarding the decision, on March 10, 2017, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the impeachment with all 8 justices and removed President Park from office. The Court ruled that President Park had allowed an unofficial organization to intervene in state affairs and seriously violated her constitutional duties. Fourth, regarding the significance and impact, this case, as Korea's first case of presidential removal, was evaluated as showing an example of peaceful transfer of power through procedures. It was also recorded as a constitutional event where the principles of "people's sovereignty" and "rule of law" were substantially realized.

✅ Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's Impeachment Case (2025)

• The background and course of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's impeachment attracted attention. The background and process of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's recent impeachment are as follows. First, regarding the background of the impeachment, Prime Minister Han, during the acting presidential system due to the President's impeachment, had controversies related to martial law decisions and refusal to appoint Constitutional Court judges, which the opposition claimed violated the Constitution and laws. Second, regarding the process of proposing and resolving the impeachment motion, the opposition proposed an impeachment motion citing five reasons, including abetting martial law and refusing to appoint Constitutional Court judges, and the National Assembly passed it. As a result, Prime Minister Han was immediately suspended from his duties, and the Acting Prime Minister system was activated. Third, regarding the political impact, it was an unprecedented situation where even the Prime Minister, who was Acting President, was impeached, raising concerns about weakened government functions and state confusion. Fourth, regarding public opinion, public opinion was divided over the legitimacy of the impeachment, with criticism that it was an abuse of constitutional procedures and support that it was a legitimate exercise of checks on power.

• The Constitutional Court's dismissal decision and its significance must be understood. The Constitutional Court's decision on Prime Minister Han Duck-soo's impeachment and its significance are as follows. First, regarding the Constitutional Court's adjudication process, the Constitutional Court reviewed the Prime Minister's violations of the Constitution and laws and their seriousness through about 3 months of adjudication. In particular, the legality of martial law decisions and the scope of discretion in decisions related to Constitutional Court judge appointments were major issues. Second, regarding the decision, the Court dismissed the impeachment, ruling that even if some actions had constitutional issues, they were not considered "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal." In particular, the Court held that even if the Prime Minister's actions were unconstitutional, their degree was not serious enough to justify removal. Third, regarding the political significance, with this decision, Prime Minister Han returned to his duties after 87 days, and the government was able to pursue normalization of state affairs. However, the opposition criticized the Court's decision, and political confrontation continued. Fourth, regarding the constitutional significance, this decision reconfirmed the standard of "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal" for impeachment, and it has significance in presenting, for the first time, standards for impeachment adjudication against a Prime Minister. Fifth, regarding future prospects, this decision will be an important precedent for future high-ranking official impeachment procedures, and discussions on the proper operation direction of the impeachment system are expected to continue.

4️⃣ Related Terminology

🔎 Impeachment Trial

• Impeachment trial is the procedure in which the Constitutional Court makes the final decision on impeachment by the National Assembly.
• Impeachment trial is a constitutional adjudication procedure in which the Constitutional Court makes the final decision on whether to remove a public official regarding an impeachment motion resolved by the National Assembly. According to the Constitutional Court Act, impeachment trial begins as soon as the written resolution of impeachment from the National Assembly is received, and the duties of the respondent (the subject of impeachment) are suspended until the pronouncement of the adjudication. In the trial process, impeachment committees elected from the National Assembly explain the reasons for impeachment, and the respondent counters through legal counsel. The adjudication is upheld with the approval of 6 or more out of 9 justices, and this is final, with no agency able to object to it. When an upholding decision is made, the respondent is immediately removed from public office and is restricted from taking public office for 5 years. When a dismissal decision is made, the respondent immediately returns to their duties. Impeachment trial is judged based on the standard of "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal," and simple policy failures or minor legal violations are not grounds for upholding. This system plays the role of finding a balance point between holding public officials legally accountable and protecting them from indiscriminate impeachment for political purposes.

🔎 Removal

• Removal means the loss of position by a public official following an upholding decision in an impeachment trial.
• Removal is the immediate loss of position by a public official when an upholding decision is made in an impeachment trial. Unlike removal as one of the general disciplinary measures, removal by impeachment has special legal effects based on the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act. The characteristics of removal by impeachment are as follows. First, immediacy. The effect occurs at the moment the Constitutional Court's upholding decision is pronounced, and no separate execution procedure is necessary. Second, incontestability. No appeal procedure is recognized for the removal decision, and it binds all state agencies. Third, restriction from taking public office. The removed person cannot take any public office, such as civil servant or National Assembly member, for 5 years from the date of the decision's pronouncement. Fourth, relationship with criminal responsibility. Removal only means loss of position, and criminal responsibility for the same act is pursued through separate criminal trial procedures. Fifth, relationship with treatment such as retirement pay. The treatment of the removed public official, such as pension or retirement pay, is determined according to the relevant laws for each public office. Removal by impeachment is the strongest constitutional sanction against public officials who have betrayed the people's trust, and is the ultimate mechanism to ensure the accountability of public officials.

🔎 Suspension of Duties

• Suspension of duties is a temporary state of authority restriction that occurs immediately upon the resolution of impeachment.
• Suspension of duties is a state where the authority to perform duties of the public official is temporarily suspended until the final decision of the Constitutional Court after an impeachment motion is resolved in the National Assembly. Article 65, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution stipulates, "Any person against whom a motion for impeachment has been passed shall be suspended from exercising his power until the impeachment has been adjudicated." The characteristics of suspension of duties are as follows. First, automatic occurrence. It occurs automatically by law simultaneously with the National Assembly's impeachment resolution, without requiring a separate administrative procedure. Second, temporariness. It is a temporary state maintained only until the final decision (upholding or dismissal) of the Constitutional Court. Third, limitation of scope. Only the authority to perform duties of the public official is suspended, and other rights such as status or remuneration are not affected. Fourth, complementing the vacancy of duties. During the period of suspension of duties, an acting officer designated by law performs the relevant duties. For example, in case of suspension of the President's duties, the Prime Minister assumes the role of Acting President. Fifth, incontestability. There is no separate appeal procedure for the suspension of duties itself, and it can only be resolved through the impeachment trial procedure. The suspension of duties system is a preventive measure to prevent the possibility that an impeached public official might influence the adjudication procedure using their authority or commit additional violations of the Constitution or laws.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: How does impeachment differ from a general criminal trial?

A: Impeachment and general criminal trials differ in several aspects. First, they have different purposes. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a public official from office, while the purpose of a criminal trial is to impose punishment for criminal acts. Second, they have different adjudication institutions. In impeachment, the National Assembly prosecutes and the Constitutional Court adjudicates, while in criminal trials, the prosecution indicts and the court tries the case. Third, they have different applicable subjects. Impeachment targets only specific high-ranking officials such as the President, Prime Minister, and ministers, while criminal trials can target all citizens. Fourth, they have different requirements and standards. The requirement for impeachment is "violation of the Constitution or laws in official duties" and the standard is "violations serious enough to warrant removal," while the requirements for criminal trials are "meeting the elements of a crime, illegality, responsibility" and the standard is "proof beyond reasonable doubt." Fifth, they have different results and effects. The result of upheld impeachment is removal and restriction from taking public office for 5 years, while the result of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial is the imposition of punishment such as imprisonment or fines. Sixth, there is a relationship and possibility of parallel proceedings. Impeachment and criminal trials can proceed separately for the same act, and the result of one does not directly affect the other. For example, even if removed through impeachment, one might be found not guilty in a criminal trial, or conversely, even if found guilty in a criminal trial, impeachment might be dismissed.

Q: Can the National Assembly change its mind and withdraw after resolving impeachment?

A: The National Assembly cannot arbitrarily withdraw an impeachment motion after resolving it. This is based on the following legal and institutional reasons. First, there are no withdrawal provisions in the Constitution and laws. Article 65 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act do not contain any provisions allowing the National Assembly to withdraw impeachment after resolution. Second, there are limitations based on the principle of separation of powers. When an impeachment motion is resolved, the authority to adjudicate transfers to the Constitutional Court, and subsequent procedures fall within the independent authority of the Constitutional Court. Withdrawal by the National Assembly might infringe upon the authority of the Constitutional Court. Third, there is the automatic effect of suspension of duties. The constitutional effect of suspending the duties of the relevant public official occurs simultaneously with the impeachment resolution, and this occurs automatically by law without additional measures from the National Assembly. Fourth, there is the duty of adjudication by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court Act stipulates that the Constitutional Court must adjudicate when an impeachment motion is received, and there are no exception clauses recognizing withdrawal by the National Assembly. Fifth, there are no precedents. In Korean constitutional history, there are no cases where the National Assembly has withdrawn impeachment after resolution, and all impeachment cases have been concluded with the final decision of the Constitutional Court. For these reasons, once impeachment is resolved in the National Assembly, the outcome can only be determined through adjudication by the Constitutional Court.

Q: Are there cases of impeachment of public officials other than the President?

A: There have been several cases of impeachment of public officials other than the President, mainly targeting judges. First, regarding judge impeachment cases, in 2009, an impeachment motion against Shin Young-chul, then a presiding judge of the Seoul Central District Court, was proposed but voted down in the plenary vote. At that time, Judge Shin became the subject of impeachment due to allegations of interference in trials. Also, in 2021, an impeachment motion against Lim Seong-geun, a presiding judge of the Busan High Court, was passed in the National Assembly, but the Constitutional Court dismissed the adjudication request due to the judge's resignation. Second, in 2023, an impeachment motion against Lee Sang-min, then Minister of the Interior and Safety, was passed in the National Assembly, but the Constitutional Court made a dismissal decision citing lack of seriousness of the act. This case was recorded as the first impeachment trial case against an executive cabinet member. Third, the most recent case is the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo mentioned in the news. It was the first impeachment case against a Prime Minister but was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Fourth, there have not yet been attempts to impeach Constitutional Court justices or members of the National Election Commission. Fifth, internationally, there are impeachment cases against high-ranking officials such as ministers and judges in other countries like the United States and United Kingdom, with varied procedures and results according to each country's constitutional system. Thus, while impeachment of public officials other than the President is relatively rare, it has important significance as a means of checking power as stipulated by the Constitution.

Q: Is there a possibility of impeachment being abused as a political tool?

A: The possibility of impeachment being abused as a political tool exists, and there are various views and institutional devices regarding this. First, concerns about abuse actually exist. There is a possibility that the majority party in parliament might pursue impeachment against public officials from the minority party or political opponents for political purposes. These concerns can be heightened especially when the requirement of "violation of the Constitution or laws" can sometimes be broadly interpreted. Second, institutional devices have been put in place to prevent this. Our Constitution has set a high quorum for impeachment resolution (two-thirds or more of the total members for the President) to make political abuse difficult. Also, by having the final judgment made by the Constitutional Court rather than a political institution, objectivity and legal expertise are secured. Third, there are strict review standards by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court applies strict standards such as "violations of law serious enough to warrant removal" rather than simple legal violations, checking political abuse. Fourth, political burden and the role of public opinion are important. If impeachment is pursued without clear grounds, it can face political burden and public criticism, acting as a deterrent factor. Fifth, there are discussions about system improvement. There are also opinions that the requirements and procedures for impeachment should be clarified, and additional institutional devices should be established to prevent abuse. Ultimately, for the sound operation of the impeachment system, the restraint and responsibility of politicians, the independence of the Constitutional Court, and the mature judgment of the people are all necessary.