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

[johnwk]

Yup. Now please demonstrate how a Senator is a civil officer of the U.S.

Your deflection is noted.

If you disagree a Senator is a civil officer of the U.S., then provide your documentation.

 

[BackAgain]

Your deflection is noted.

If you disagree a Senator is a civil officer of the U.S., then provide your documentation.

I already did.

But you’re a conman. So you won’t admit it.

Look it up:

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

Of your ability to look up the Constiturion is now suddenly limited, I’ll quote it for you:

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.

 

[Marener]

No. You are mistakenly talking about Senators being subject to impeachment. They aren’t. And they have no immunity from criminal prosecution (other than the speech and debate clause which is not relevant here) based on anything in the Constitution.

Also, they aren’t “officers.”

The president doesn’t have immunity from criminal prosecution based on anything in the constitution either.

But that doesn’t stop you guys from acting like he does.

 

[BackAgain]

The president doesn’t have immunity from criminal prosecution based on anything in the constitution either.

Except maybe by inference. The SCOTUS may disagree with you soon enough.

But that doesn’t stop you guys from acting like he does.

I have never acted like he does. But I have shared my support for Trump’s lawyers’ legal arguments.

Rey again, fail boi.

 

[Marener]

Except maybe by inference. The SCOTUS may disagree with you soon enough.

I have never acted like he does. But I have shared my support for Trump’s lawyers’ legal arguments.

Rey again, fail boi.

The same legal arguments would apply to senators.

Thats why it’s such a stupid legal argument.

 

[BackAgain]

The same legal arguments would apply to senators.

Nope. A false claim by you. Damn; you’re ignorant.

Thats why it’s such a stupid legal argument.

You’re an idiot and can’t even understand what you yourself are babbling about. Lol.

 

[Marener]

Nope. A false claim by you. Damn; you’re ignorant.

You’re an idiot and can’t even understand what you yourself are babbling about. Lol.

Sure. How can Senators do their job when they’re worried about unscrupulous prosecutors chasing them down?

 

[BackAgain]

Sure. How can Senators do their job when they’re worried about unscrupulous prosecutors chasing them down?

Zzz.

File a brief.

Until then, as the rest of us all see, you’re off topic little deflection boi.

 

[Marener]

Zzz.

File a brief.

Until then, as the rest of us all see, you’re off topic little deflection boi.

Right. You’re a political hack who doesn’t actually have any consistent beliefs.

 

[BackAgain]

Right. You’re a political hack who doesn’t actually have any consistent beliefs.

No ma’am. I’m the one who does.

You have no beliefs at all.

You’re just a troll bitch.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are talking about impeachment.

This is a criminal case.

Yeah…was thinking the same thing. Menendez isn’t being impeached..also, impeachment can’t happen for senators and congressmen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Republicans threw out that weirdo George Santos, but you watch, the Democrats will protect this piece of crap. They did it before when Mendendez had "events" with underage girls in the Caribbean.

You know, that’s a good point. They tossed santos.. yet the dems won’t toss menendez?

Even thought many dems are requesting it?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-democratic-senators-baldwin-tester-call-menendezs-resignation-2023-09-26/#:~:text=I%20urge%20Senator%20Menendez%20to,called%20for%20Menendez%20to%20resign.

 

[johnwk]

I already did.

But you’re a conman. So you won’t admit it.

Look it up:

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

Of your ability to look up the Constiturion is now suddenly limited, I’ll quote it for you:

All I see is you attempting to apply the Humpty Humpty 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.”

.
When one reads the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution it confirms the very purpose of impeachment was to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust, who violates that trust and commits criminal acts, such as bribery, that are related to his office of public trust.


“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”


I am of the opinion that the first step to deal with Sen. Menendez is the have the Senate convict him of the charges, which then opens the door for him being "… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and in a federal district court 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."

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All I see is you attempting to apply the Humpty Humpty 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.”

.
When one reads the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution it confirms the very purpose of impeachment was to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust, who violates that trust and commits criminal acts, such as bribery, that are related to his office of public trust.


“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”


I am of the opinion that the first step to deal with Sen. Menendez is the have the Senate convict him of the charges, which then opens the door for him being "… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and in a federal district court 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."

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

you are REAL slow, again for the stupid among us, Senators can't be impeached.

 

[johnwk]

you are REAL slow, again for the stupid among us, Senators can't be impeached.

Let us explore your opinion.

When reviewing the making of our Constitution I have found a preponderance of evidence indicating our Founders intended the impeachment process to apply to all those holding a federal office of public trust, and without distinction.

As I previously documented, 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”.

Rather than me declaring what our Constitution means, I am one of the few who actually makes a sincere effort to document its meaning as stated during its making, and by those who actually took part in its making.

And that brings me to the following dilemma. I cannot understand how you arrive at the notion, and can truthfully declare, ". . . impeachment does NOT apply to Senators . . . ", when our founder's very words indicates otherwise.

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]

Let us explore your opinion.

When reviewing the making of our Constitution I have found a preponderance of evidence indicating our Founders intended the impeachment process to apply to all those holding a federal office of public trust, and without distinction.

As I previously documented, 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”.

Rather than me declaring what our Constitution means, I am one of the few who actually makes a sincere effort to document its meaning as stated during its making, and by those who actually took part in its making.

And that brings me to the following dilemma. I cannot understand how you arrive at the notion, and can truthfully declare, ". . . impeachment does NOT apply to Senators . . . ", when our founder's very words indicates otherwise.

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)

well except that the Constitution CLEARLY, in plain English, states that the House and the Senate are solely responsible for their members, to seat them or unseat them is left totally to those Houses of Congress and they are not considers Officers at all.

You have been shown this by at least one poster here with a link to the specific part of the Constitution that says so.

 

[Rawley]

Sure. How can Senators do their job when they’re worried about unscrupulous prosecutors chasing them down?

Kay Bailey Hutchison
David Durenberger
Harrison Williams
Edward Gurney
Burton Wheeler
Truman Newberry,

Just to name a few

​

 

[johnwk]

well except that the Constitution CLEARLY, in plain English, states that the House and the Senate are solely responsible for their members, to seat them or unseat them is left totally to those Houses of Congress and they are not considers Officers at all.

No where does the Constitution suggest members of Congress are exempt from impeachment. But as documented HERE our founders, in their very own words, confirm members of Congress are not exempt from the impeachment process.

But hey, I can fully understand the motive of those who 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.”

 

[Rawley]

No where does the Constitution suggest members of Congress are exempt from impeachment. But as documented HERE our founders, in their very own words, confirm members of Congress are not exempt from the impeachment process.

But hey, I can fully understand the motive of those who 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.”

One would think the lawyers for at least one of the dozen Senators would have brought up your theory when indicted while in office.

How common are indictments in the Senate? Here's a look at senators who faced charges

New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is one of only two living senators who faced indictments while serving in the Senate.

www.usatoday.com

 

[johnwk]

One would think the lawyers for at least one of the dozen Senators would have brought up your theory when indicted while in office.

How common are indictments in the Senate? Here's a look at senators who faced charges

New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is one of only two living senators who faced indictments while serving in the Senate.

www.usatoday.com

I appreciate the link you provided, but nowhere in its content does it discredit or devalue the documentation I provided HERE, confirming members of Congress are not immune from the impeachment process.