BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
And yet, impeachment is not applicable to Senators or Representatives.
Our Constitution. Get to know it.
Our Constitution. Get to know it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One simple question (ignoring the personal attacks of the Liabilities here), is the Menendez defense team using your argument?
According to you. But see the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT of the then Senator William Blount.And yet, impeachment is not applicable to Senators or Representatives.
No. Again, according to the very words in the Constitution.According to you. But see the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT of the then Senator William Blount.
And, our Founders disagree with you.
Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
And during the South Carolina ratification debates, Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY notes: “If the President or the senators abused their trust, they were liable to impeachment and punishment; and the fewer that were concerned in the abuse of the trust, the more certain would be the punishment”.
Moving on to the Massachusetts ratification debates, Gen. BROOKS, (of Medford.) points out, . “The Senate can frame no law but by consent of the Representatives, and is answerable to that house for its conduct. If that conduct excites suspicion, they are to be impeached, punished, (or prevented from holding any office, which is great punishment.)”
Later on, Mr. Stillman confirms: “Another check in favor of the people is this – that the Constitution provides for the impeachment, trial, and punishment of every officer in Congress, who shall be guilty of malconduct. With such a prospect, who will dare to abuse the powers vested in him by the people”?
And in the Virginia ratification debates, Randolph in defending the proposed constitution askes: “Who are your senators? They are chosen by the legislatures, and a third of them go out of the Senate at the end of every second year. They may also be impeached. There are no better checks upon earth”.
Seems quite clear that impeachment was intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violate that trust.
You interpretation of the words.No. Again, according to the very words in the Constitution.
No. The words themselves.You interpretation of the words.
No. The words themselves.
Can’t help but notice that you ducked my question.
Is it your contention that Senators and Reps are (or Constitutionally even can be) “civil officers” of the United States?
“Your “contention is absolutely baseless in light of what they put into the Constitution, itself.My contention is our founders very words confirm that impeachment is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violate that trust.
Madison thought it
“. . . indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against, ". . . a President who might betray his trust to foreign powers." And, Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” SOURCE
And during the South Carolina ratification debates, Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY notes: “If the President or the senators abused their trust, they were liable to impeachment and punishment; and the fewer that were concerned in the abuse of the trust, the more certain would be the punishment”.
Moving on to the Massachusetts ratification debates, Gen. BROOKS, (of Medford.) points out, . “The Senate can frame no law but by consent of the Representatives, and is answerable to that house for its conduct. If that conduct excites suspicion, they are to be impeached, punished, (or prevented from holding any office, which is great punishment.)”
Later on, Mr. Stillman confirms: “Another check in favor of the people is this – that the Constitution provides for the impeachment, trial, and punishment of every officer in Congress, who shall be guilty of malconduct. With such a prospect, who will dare to abuse the powers vested in him by the people”?
And in the Virginia ratification debates, Randolph in defending the proposed constitution askes: “Who are your senators? They are chosen by the legislatures, and a third of them go out of the Senate at the end of every second year. They may also be impeached. There are no better checks upon earth”.
Seems quite clear that impeachment is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violate that trust.
“Your “contention is absolutely baseless in light of what they put into the Constitution, itself.
I know. I quoted that for you.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I know. I quoted that for you.johnwk said:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The question you insist and persist in running from is whether it is your contention that representatives and Senators are civil officers of the United States.
Stop bobbing and weaving and ducking and covering and running.No running on this end. Your question was addressed HERE
The reason jwk declines to just simply and straightforwardly answer the question is because I have already schooled him.Stop bobbing and weaving and ducking and covering and running.
Is it YOUR contention that congresspersons and Senators are “civil officers” of the United States?
It’s really not a difficult question.
If you had any integrity, you could answer it with either a “yes” or a “no.”
But so far, your m.o. is consistent: cowardice.
The reason jwk declines to just simply and straightforwardly answer the question is because I have already schooled him.
Thank you.Here is a LINK to Sen. Robert Menendez’s memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss.
Also see:
Federal judge tosses Sen. Bob Menendez's motion to dismiss second superseding indictment
A federal judge denied Sen. Bob Menendez’s motion to dismiss the second superseding indictment in his case this week.www.northjersey.com
Menendez argued that the actions he took while serving as a U.S. senator were constitutionally protected and that he was fulfilling his duty as a lawmaker.
Judge Sidney Stein of the Southern District Court of New York said that while taking part in votes or the functions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are legislative acts, the allegations that he “agreed — or promised — to use his power” were not.
“This is because those meetings, in implementing a corrupt bargain, are not legislative fact-finding or information gathering meriting the Speech or Debate Clause’s protection,” Stein wrote. “Surely meetings with, and the provision of information to, Egyptian officials in relation to a corrupt bribery scheme must be viewed as occurring outside of the legislative process.”
Nope. According to the very words of the Constitution, itself, you abject stupid lying sack of crap.Only according to your unsubstantiated and sophomoric interpretation of the constitution.
Senator Bayard points out, by actual legislation that a member of Congress is within the meaning of “civil officer” That Legislation was enacted, March 1, 1792—An Act relative to the Election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the Officer who shall act as President in case of Vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President. LINK
According to the legislation the “officers” eligible were first the president pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the House second, and as such, members of Congress are within the definition of being “officers” of the United States. SOURCE
SO THERE!
According to the very words of the Constitution,
Yep. We’ve been through this.The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article I, Section 6, cl. 2.… no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Thank you.
It looks like you are on solid ground in part(s) of your argument, in that the judge did not disagree with certain premises, she just ruled that Menendez's actions did not meet the standard of being part of any legislative process. Is that what you see?
Since the dainty now seems to agree with jw, it is a certainty that jw is completely wrong.Thank you.
It looks like you are on solid ground in part(s) of your argument, in that the judge did not disagree with certain premises, she just ruled that Menendez's actions did not meet the standard of being part of any legislative process. Is that what you see?