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.
What is the punishment for impeachment? If he was already removed from office by being expelled, what would a trial accomplish? Expelling him again? The House was just simply not very intelligent and did not read the Constitution, because it is very clear.No. That is not true. Let me enlighten you to the truth and facts.
The then Senator William Blount, was in fact the first member of Congress to be impeached by the House.
The impeachment revolved around a letter Sen. Blount wrote which, as stated by the then Attorney General Mr. Rawle, confirmed the following: that William Blount’s letter was a crime, that the crime was that of a misdemeanor, and that William Blount being a Senator, was liable to impeachment for said crime before the Senate. And on July 7th, 1797 the House, which has “sole power” to impeach:
And, in compliance with that order, the House presented ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.
The Senate did expel Blount and ordered him to appear for trial which he never did, but the trial still moved forward in the Senate. LINK
During the Senate trial of Blount, an interesting debate formed as to whether or not Blount was a “civil officer” within the meaning of our Constitution, but the question was never definitively resolved.
During the trial the Senate did defeat a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer, but after the vote uncertainty remained if a Senator could be impeached who no longer held their office of public trust (considering Blount had been expelled), and if a Senator, as mentioned in the Constitution, is within the meaning of a “civil officer”.
Now, with respect to the last unresolved question - if a member of Congress is within the constitutional meaning of a civil officer - and to avoid supplanting our personal opinions as the rule of law, our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when including the process of impeachment in our Constitution.
And the historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provide a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE the impeachment provisions were intentionally adopted to deal with anyone who abuses their federal public 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)
You can't be a civil officer and be a Senator at the same time, which destroys your argument that Senators can be impeached, dumbass!You are the one who posted that. Not me. So, why did you post it?
The reason the SCOTUS has not ruled is simple. No one has ever challenged it because the answer is in the plain text of the Constitution and not open to interpretation. I have to commend your dedication to proving your own ignorance.The Senate having the power to remove its own members has never been in dispute by me.
What is in dispute is your personal opinion that Representatives and Senators are not civil officers within the meaning of our Constitution, and that question to this very date, has not been answered by our Supreme Court.
And in order to answer that question our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when they included the process of impeachment in our Constitution.
Finally, the historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provides an answer to what evil our founders were addressing when adding the impeachment provisions to our Constitution. The PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE confirms our founders provided the impeachment provisions to deal with all those who may abuse their federal public 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)
You left out a few key details, didn't you?Once again you offer your interpretations of our Constitution, while I offer a FULLY DOCUMENTED ACCOUNT of the Senator Blount affair.
So there.
The Senate in that case said no, because the Constitution states they are not civil officers.Which has nothing to do with the question . . . can a member of Congress be impeached?
The House impeached him wrongly. Why can't you see that?According to you, but the fact is, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House and the House presented the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.
Why must you make stuff up?
They could not remove him from office because they correctly determined that Senators are not civil officers, and thus, not eligible for impeachment. They basically said, the House fucked up, which they obvioulsy did.Of course, the Senate did not impeach Blount. That power is exclusively vested in the House. And the House exercised that power and impeached Blount under the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
.
You cannot impeach a Senator. The House fucked up, and the Senate called them on it. they removed the Senator under the terms of the Constitution. The House was simply being stupid and misinterpreting the Constitution. remember it had only been around for 10 years at that time. Not like the 235 years we have had it.Of course, the Senate did not impeach Blount. That power is exclusively vested in the House. And the House exercised that power and impeached Blount under the following ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
.
Federalist 65 is not law, in case you did not know.You hit upon the very reason why our founders adopted a special due process procedure for those exercising authority over a federal public trust, who are accused of violating that trust by engaging in acts associated with that trust.
Those exercising authority over a public trust must sometimes act under unique situations that involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of one exercising a public trust. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should one be accused of violating their public trust and if found guilty, the door is then opened for them being " . . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", as per art. I, § 3 cl. 7
Hamilton confirms the above in Federalist 65:
"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .
. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."
Totally and completely irrelevant to the discussion. Congratulations on another fuck-up!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
There is not interpreattion of these words. It is plain English.You interpretation of the words.
Where does it say Representatives and Senators?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.
You do not seem to recognize those comments are irrelevant as they were not included in the Constitution.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?
There is not interpreattion of these words. It is plain English.
If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.”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."
And all Democrats are criminals. Proven Fact.You are talking about impeachment.
This is a criminal case.
None of what you posted is in the Constitution. You refuse to quote the applicable portions which plainly disagree with your stupid assumptions. Why is that?Take a class in constitutional construction, 101
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.
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)
QUESTION: Why has the House not impeached Senator Menendez?
As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:
If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.
The problem is, our entire Congress, House and Senate, has become one big happy family and den of thieves behind closed doors, and they protect each other’s rear end.
As a matter of fact, when one carefully studies the bills they vote on, almost all use their vote to plunder our federal treasury for objects not authorized by our Constitution, and this is the first step in their massive money laundering operation by which, in the end, redistributes $ BILLIONS, even $ TRILLIONS, from our federal treasury, and fattens their own fortunes and the fortunes of their major donors.
So why would they want to hold one of their own accountable, and impeach them for using their office of public trust for personal gain? Almost every one of these scoundrels are in on the act and doing it. The plundering of our federal treasury has become so common these days, members of Congress begin re-balancing their checkbooks after bills are passed and the President signs them, who is also in on the act along with his staff.
JWK
Under today’s authoritarian democrat party leadership, our government doesn’t help to fix the nation’s problems. It fixes the people, like Trump, who dare to point to the nation’s problems.
The answer is in Article 1 Section 6
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.
I can't find any wording in there stating "Congress is forbidden to impeach members of Congress"
Perhaps that is why the House did in fact IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.
Want to try again, Jets?
