Federal Court in New York lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes

[BackAgain]

And yet, impeachment is not applicable to Senators or Representatives.

Our Constitution. Get to know it.

 

[johnwk]

One simple question (ignoring the personal attacks of the Liabilities here), is the Menendez defense team using your argument?

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

 

[johnwk]

And yet, impeachment is not applicable to Senators or Representatives.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

No. Again, according to the very words in the Constitution.

As you know.

 

[johnwk]

No. Again, according to the very words in the Constitution.

You interpretation of the words.

 

[BackAgain]

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?

 

[johnwk]

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?

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Maybe that has something to do with you running on terror from my question, again.

 

[johnwk]

“Your “contention is absolutely baseless in light of what they put into the Constitution, itself.

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

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.

 

[johnwk]

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.

I know. I quoted that for you.

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.

No running on this end. Your question was addressed HERE

 

[BackAgain]

No running on this end. Your question was addressed HERE

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

If he says that Congresspersons and Senators ARE civil officers, then by the very terms he just quoted from our Constitution, making them theoretically subject to “impeachment,” then he is necessarily denying

Article I​

• Section 6 Rights and Disabilities​

  • Clause 2 Bar on Holding Federal Office
  • No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

But if he honestly acknowledges that they are NOT “civil officers” (as the Constitution plainly says), then he is compelled to admit that the impeachment clause he himself quoted above makes them ineligible for impeachment.

To admit that would be to confess his own error.

He is screwed either way. The only legitimate way out of the box is to just be honest about what the Constitution says, in both instances, and concede that he has been flatly and totally wrong.

 

[johnwk]

The reason jwk declines to just simply and straightforwardly answer the question is because I have already schooled him.

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!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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?

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.”

 

[BackAgain]

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!

Nope. According to the very words of the Constitution, itself, you abject stupid lying sack of crap.

This is one of the reasons you refuse to just answer the question. Youre also a coward.

 

[johnwk]

According to the very words of the Constitution,

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.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Yep. We’ve been through this.

Senators and Representatives are specifically excluded from being “civil officers of the United States.”

… no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Article I, Section 6, cl. 2.

That’s exactly why you’re wrong and too gutless to just simply answer my straightforward question.

You’re a coward.

 

[johnwk]

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?

From what I have researched, I am confident in saying our founders provided a special due process procedure for one exercising authority over a federal public trust, who is accused of violating that trust by engaging in acts connected to that office of public trust.

See the INDICTMENT for what is being charged. Are the charges not connected to Menendez's' office of public trust?

Now, compare his actions to the very reasons for which the impeachment due process procedure was adopted by our founders:

“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 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.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74” , Impeachment and the Constitution 1


Additionally see:

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”.


So, my question is, how does a federal district court by-pass our Constitution’s due process procedure for one holding an office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust?

 

[BackAgain]

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.