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

[Jets]

Section 6​

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.





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.

U.S. Constitution - Article I | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

The text of the Constitution speaks for itself.

 

[johnwk]

The text of the Constitution speaks for itself.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”


So, you would then agree that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach members of Congress as they did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

 

[Jets]

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Not in dispute.

So, you would then agree that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach members of Congress as they did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

The Senate dismissed those charges. If one examines Article 1 Section 6, it is understandable why members of Congress should not be considered public officers under the impeachment clause.

I would further argue that impeachment of Congressional members is redundant because both houses have rules in place to remove representatives.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

A + B = C.

Sorry life confuses you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”


So, you would then agree that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach members of Congress as they did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

There is no need to Impeach members of Congress since they already have established the method for removal is a vote on the floor of that House of Congress. No need for a trial.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk said:
So, you would then agree that the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach members of Congress as they did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

The Senate dismissed those charges. If one examines Article 1 Section 6, it is understandable why members of Congress should not be considered public officers under the impeachment clause.

The Senate has the “sole power” to try impeachments.

But it is not . . . understandable why members of Congress should not be considered public officers under the impeachment clause . . . , when one considers the words of our Founders during the making of our Constitution, and considering our Founders words during our Constitution’s ratification debates, e.g.,


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

Additionally see:

The South Carolina ratification debates when 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, as we can see from our Founders very own words, impeachment, and its unique due process procedure, was intentionally adopted to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust who was accused of violating 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)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As for Criminal Charges against members of Congress that has nothing to do with impeachment, ALL impeachment does is remove the member from Congress if convicted by the senate. A criminal charge is not handled by Congress at all. And again, neither house requires an impeachment to remove a member.

 

[Jets]

The Senate has the “sole power” to try impeachments.

Not in dispute.

But it is not . . . understandable why members of Congress should not be considered public officers under the impeachment clause . . . , when one considers the words of our Founders during the making of our Constitution, and considering our Founders words during our Constitution’s ratification debates, e.g.,

Disagreed. What the founders said or opined during the ratification debates does not override the actual words of the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 6 actually lays out members of Congress are not public officers. Lets review the text itself:

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,

There it is. Plain and simple. If a member of Congress cannot be appointed to a civil office, they cannot be considered civil officers by definition. Lets look at the second part:

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

This further cements the above text in section 6. A member of Congress cannot be a part of the Civil office, which is delineated and separated from their term of office.

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

Additionally see:

The South Carolina ratification debates when 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, as we can see from our Founders very own words, impeachment, and its unique due process procedure, was intentionally adopted to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust who was accused of violating that trust

That is conjecture, but as it has been pointed out, the text itself explains why members of Congress should not be impeached.

Lets note three things:

The HoR impeached William Blount.

The Senate dismissed those impeachment charges.

No other member of Congress has ever been impeached.

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)

 

[johnwk]

As for Criminal Charges against members of Congress that has nothing to do with impeachment, ALL impeachment does is remove the member from Congress if convicted by the senate. A criminal charge is not handled by Congress at all. And again, neither house requires an impeachment to remove a member.

Impeachment, and its unique due process procedure, is the first step to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”



And, the second step in the impeachment process is, upon conviction, the party so convicted is then “ . . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law . . . " as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:



”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

 

[johnwk]

Disagreed. What the founders said or opined during the ratification debates does not override the actual words of the Constitution.

Thank you for your opinion, but constitutional law, 101, confirms the following:

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)

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.

 

[Jets]

Thank you for your opinion, but constitutional law, 101, confirms the following:

The text of the Constitution is not opinion. The words speak for themselves.

Intent of constitution

Intent does not override the actual words of the Constitution.

It would be an opinion if someone promulgated they did.

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)

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.

We can cavil till the end of time over this. The text of the Constitution explains why members of Congress should not be impeached.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Impeachment, and its unique due process procedure, is the first step to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”



And, the second step in the impeachment process is, upon conviction, the party so convicted is then “ . . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law . . . " as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:



”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

they are already liable and subject to prosecution. The President and Vice President are the exception.

 

[johnwk]

they are already liable and subject to prosecution. The President and Vice President are the exception.

Not until they are afforded the unique due process procedure specifically adopted for one holding a federal office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:
”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

 

[johnwk]

We can cavil till the end of time over this. The text of the Constitution explains why members of Congress should not be impeached.

According to your interpretation which is not in harmony with the very words of our Founders.

It seems to me, instead of you relying upon our founder's meaning of the Constitution, you prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to 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

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

 

[Jets]

According to your interpretation which is not in harmony with the very words of our Founders.

The text is plain for all to see.

It seems to me, instead of you relying upon our founder's meaning of the Constitution, you prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution:

No what is happening here is that you are intentionally ignoring the words of the Constitution because it conflicts with your supposition. That is why you are pivoting to intent.

“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.”

Could not agree more. That is why the text of Article 1 Section 6 says what it means and means what it says.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Ok, please explain what is meant by Section 6.

 

[johnwk]

The text is plain for all to see.

So, I take it then, you agree the text does not forbid members of Congress being impeached.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, I take it then, you agree the text does not forbid members of Congress being impeached.

Of course not but it is pointless. It has no purpose and that is why in the only case it ever happened the senate dismissed it. the text is clear members of congress are not officers as required under the article.

 

[Jets]

So, I take it then, you agree the text does not forbid members of Congress being impeached.

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,

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

You tell me.

 

[johnwk]

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,

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

You tell me.

You are the one who posted that. Not me. So, why did you post it?

 

[Jets]

You are the one who posted that. Not me. So, why did you post it?

To ask how this text should be interpreted.

I opine it explains why members of Congress are not in fact civil officers as per the impeachment clauses.

Your turn.