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

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since the dainty now seems to agree with jw, it is a certainty that jw is completely wrong.

Trolling with personal insults again?

Go for it.

 

[BackAgain]

Trolling with personal insults again?

Go for it.

Nah. Just responding to your baseless support of the ignorant position of your new pal, jw.

By the way, your off topic again? Troll boi.

The topic isn’t your obsession with me.

The topic remains the ridiculous claim that the Federal court “lacks” jurisdiction to try a sitting U.S. Senator, based on (of all things) on an argument that he has to instead be “impeached” — even though Senators are not Constitutionally eligible for impeachment.

See how to discuss on topic yet, the dainty?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

 

[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

please ignore:


as we try and stay on topic here.

You have laid out an interesting argument. It's in depth with lots of links to excellent sources of information. It ill take time to digest it all as scrolling through your posts it gets all cluttered up with the personal insults thrown at you at every turn.

keep up the good work.

 

[johnwk]

please ignore:
View attachment 949443

as we try and stay on topic here.

You have laid out an interesting argument. It's in depth with lots of links to excellent sources of information. It ill take time to digest it all as scrolling through your posts it gets all cluttered up with the personal insults thrown at you at every turn.

keep up the good work.

It certainly is frustrating when trying to have a sincere discussion, that some persist in obfuscating, agitating and instigating in order to disrupt the discussion.

Aside from that, and with respect to the legislative history I provided concerning impeachment's due process procedure, let us now take a look at some fundamental rules and principles which govern our system of law, constitutional construction, and the importance of documenting legislative intent.

Intent of constitution

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.


16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )


Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally


”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) Congress is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as used during the legislative process when a provision was adopted.



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

.

So, as it turns out, what I posted HERE is essential in determining what our Constitution means, and begs the question, how does a federal district court legally by-pass our Constitution’s due process procedure for one holding an office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust?

 

[johnwk]

Nah. Just responding to your baseless support of the ignorant position of your new pal, jw.

All you do is naysay, while posting opinions unsupported by appropriate documentation.

Does the documentation not confirm impeachment is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violate that trust.?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[BackAgain]

All you do is naysay, while posting opinions unsupported by appropriate documentation.

Does the documentation not confirm impeachment is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violate that trust.?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

False.

Unlike you and the nonsense you continue to make meaningless reference to, I quote the actual constitution.

You? You’ve got nothing.

Your ignorance is only good for laughter.

 

[johnwk]

False.

Unlike you and the nonsense you continue to make meaningless reference to, I quote the actual constitution.

And nothing you have quoted from the Constitution indicates impeachment does not apply to members of Congress.


On the other hand, what I have quoted confirms the impeachment process in our Constitution does apply to members of Congress:

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]

And nothing you have quoted from the Constitution indicates impeachment does not apply to members of Congress.

Yes. It has. You’re just too sullen, stubborn and stupid to see it or admit it.

On the other hand, what I have quoted confirms the impeachment process in our Constitution does apply to members of Congress:

Not in the slightest.

Despite your lack of honesty or intellect, the words of the Constitution remain clear.

And, your pal, Menendez, IS properly being tried in a court of law for his alleged crimes. That fact clearly undercuts your ignorant and erroneous position.

 

[johnwk]

. You’re just too sullen, stubborn and stupid to see it or admit it.

You are the one who is too ". . . sullen, stubborn and stupid . . . ", to accept OUR FOUNDERS' OWN WORDS stated during the making of our Constitution, and during its ratification debates, confirming the impeachment process in our Constitution does apply to members of Congress.

You willingly choose to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to the meaning of our Constitution:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[BackAgain]

You are the one who is too ". . . sullen, stubborn and stupid . . . ", to accept OUR FOUNDERS' OWN WORDS stated during the making of our Constitution, and during its ratification debates, confirming the impeachment process in our Constitution does apply to members of Congress.

You willingly choose to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to the meaning of our Constitution:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

No no. I quote the Constitution, itself. As you knew when you just posted your most recent lie.

Nothing here requires “interpretation.” If you were an honest man with actual testicles (you’re not), you’d just admit it.

Again, congressional representatives and senators are specifically excluded from being civil officers of the United States.

And yet, as not the President and the Vice President and civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment per the very words of the Consritution.

Lie all you want. It won’t help. You’ve already lost this discussion. There is no honest debate about it.

As I showed you several times already. This is why you refuse to answer my clear question and why you simply lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

a Senator or a Representative is removed by that house via resolution and vote by that house not by impeachment. Since all impeachment does is remove one from office it makes no sense that they would be impeached.

 

[johnwk]

No no. I quote the Constitution, itself.

Yes. You did quote the Constitution. And nothing you quoted declares, the House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.

 

[johnwk]

a Senator or a Representative is removed by that house via resolution and vote by that house not by impeachment. Since all impeachment does is remove one from office it makes no sense that they would be impeached.

Impeachment is the House of Representatives producing articles of impeachment.

Here is an EXAMPLE OF THE IMPEACHMENT of Senator William Blount.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes. You did quote the Constitution. And nothing you quoted declares, the House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.

Wrong again, stupid.


It CLEARLY limits impeachment to the President and the Vice President AND to Civil Officers Of the United States.

It further clearly states that no Representative of Senator is allowed to be a civil officer of the United States.

As I’ve pointed out to you innumerable times.

Your unwillingness to accept facts is a you problem.

 

[johnwk]

Wrong again, stupid.


It CLEARLY limits impeachment to the President and the Vice President AND to Civil Officers Of the United States.

It further clearly states that no Representative of Senator is allowed to be a civil officer of the United States.

As I’ve pointed out to you innumerable times.

Your unwillingness to accept facts is a you problem.

The fact is you have yet to provide the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution which reads:

The House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.

But here is an EXAMPLE of the House impeaching Senator William Blount.

 

[BackAgain]

The fact is you have yet to provide the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution which reads:

The House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.

But here is an EXAMPLE of the House impeaching Senator William Blount.

I’m very sorry that 1 + 1 = 2 eludes you.

What the house did to Blount was rejected by the Senate.

Go on denying what’s crystal clear.

You’re beyond hope and beyond help.

By the way, if you ever find your integrity and your balls, feel free to admit that Senators and Representative are NOT civil Officers of the United States.

 

[johnwk]

The fact is you have yet to provide the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution which reads:

The House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.

But here is an EXAMPLE of the House impeaching Senator William Blount.

I’m very sorry that 1 + 1 = 2 eludes you.

What the house did to Blount was rejected by the Senate.

It is irrelevant that the Senate rejected the impeachment of Senator Blount, which the House issued under its constitutionally authorized powers.



After a spirited debate in the Senate concerning the impeachment of Blount, the Senate members agreed to disagree by a vote of yeas 11, nays 14 LINK



The Senate’s vote does not resolve the question if members of Congress can be impeached since the Senate does not have authority to “. . . conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. . . ”, a concept Stated by our very own Supreme Court. The Senate is not a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve constitutional questions.

I am quite confident - based on our founders' words during the making of our Constitution, and during the ratification debates of our Constitution - that the House has constitutional authority to impeach any member of Congress.

 

[BackAgain]

It is irrelevant that the Senate rejected the impeachment of Senator Blount

No. It’s more relevant than the fact that the House made a Constitutional mistake.

, which the House issued under its constitutionally authorized powers.

No. It don’t. It was an error. One corrected by the House.

After a spirited debate in the Senate concerning the impeachment of Blount, the Senate members agreed to disagree by a vote of yeas 11, nays 14 LINK



The Senate’s vote does not resolve the question if members of Congress can be impeached since the Senate does not have authority to “. . . conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. . . ”, a concept Stated by our very own Supreme Court. The Senate is not a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve constitutional questions.

I am quite confident - based on our founders' words during the making of our Constitution, and during the ratification debates of our Constitution - that the House has constitutional authority to impeach any member of Congress.

Ya still can’t answer my question. We all know why.

And you still can’t validly dispute my citations to and quotations of the two relevant Constitutional articles and sections.

Your fail is eternal.

Mock ya more later.

 

[johnwk]

No. It’s more relevant than the fact that the House made a Constitutional mistake.

According to you. But not according to our Supreme Court which is the only court of competent jurisdiction to rule on the matter.

I'm still waiting for you to post the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution which reads:

The House of Representatives shall not impeach members of Congress.