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

[johnwk]

Article II, Section 4:

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.


Interesting. I see nothing in the impeachment clause that covers members of Congress.

Well, the House of Representatives certainly did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

 

[Jets]

Well, the House of Representatives certainly did when they IMPEACHED Senator William Blount.

Yes they did. That part was not in dispute.

Whether they had the constitutional authority to do so is the question.

Note:

The Senate dismissed those impeachment charges.

Ask yourself why.

Here are the relevant texts:

First,

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.

Second,

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."

Lets do some deductive reasoning here. There is nothing in the impeachment clause that includes members of Congress. It specifically says “Civil Officers” in addition to Pres and Vice Pres.

However, In the second bolded portion we see specifically that members of Congress cannot be appointed as civil officers and civil officers cannot be a member of either House.

Here is the Constitution itself explaining in its own words why the HoR impeachment of William Blount should not have happened and why it has not happened since.

 

[johnwk]

Yes they did. That part was not in dispute.

Whether they had the constitutional authority to do so is the question.

And when we review the very purpose for impeachment, and its unique due process as expounded upon during the making of our Constitution, and during the constitution's ratification debates, we quickly learn it was intentionally adopted to deal with any public servant who exercises a federal public trust and violates that trust.

Considering our system is based on “positive law”, and that a unique due process procedure was intentionally adopted to deal with public servants who violate their public trust, that procedure is the supreme law and is required to be adhered to, including Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 which, by its very wording, requires conviction by our Senate of a charged party prior to that party being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment”, under our ordinary judicial system.

Keep in mind there are a number of sound reasons for adhering to the special due process procedure written into our Constitution, e.g., in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton elaborates upon why our ordinary judicial system, including our very own Supreme Court, is not the proper venue to try one charged with violating an office of public trust. Hamilton writes:

"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."


Of course, as you have displayed, the fundamental rules of constitutional world are irrelevant, and you prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty meaning of language to our Constitution to achieve your goal:

“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.”

 

[Jets]

And when we review the very purpose for impeachment, and its unique due process as expounded upon during the making of our Constitution, and during the constitution's ratification debates, we quickly learn it was intentionally adopted to deal with any public servant who exercises a federal public trust and violates that trust.

I cited the appropriate texts which support the supposition that members of Congress are not in fact public officers. Neither the ratification debates nor the federalist papers override the written text of Article 1 Section 6. I should not have to highlight it yet again.

Considering our system is based on “positive law”, and that a unique due process procedure was intentionally adopted to deal with public servants who violate their public trust, that procedure is the supreme law and is required to be adhered to, including Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 which, by its very wording, requires conviction by our Senate of a charged party prior to that party being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment”, under our ordinary judicial system.

Why are you intentionally glossing over Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2?

Keep in mind there are a number of sound reasons for adhering to the special due process procedure written into our Constitution, e.g., in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton elaborates upon why our ordinary judicial system, including our very own Supreme Court, is not the proper venue to try one charged with violating an office of public trust. Hamilton writes:

"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."

Again, the text of Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 overrides anything written in the federalist papers.

Of course, as you have displayed, the fundamental rules of constitutional world are irrelevant, and you prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty meaning of language to our Constitution to achieve your goal:

You are engaging in sophistry. You are adhering to text when it suits your impeachment argument but pivot to ratification debates when the text negates your theory. That is disingenuous and you know it.

I already dismantled your contention that impeachment applies to members of Congress. Show me the part in the impeachment clause where it says members of congress can be impeached.

Don't bother you can’t.

“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.”

Agreed. Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 means what it says and says what it means. The only “humpty dumpty” argument is the one being put forth by you.

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

Good for Alice. My point stands and you have no counterpoint to Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 because it proves your surmise incorrect.

 

[BackAgain]

I cited the appropriate texts which support the supposition that members of Congress are not in fact public officers. Neither the ratification debates nor the federalist papers override the written text of Article 1 Section 6. I should not have to highlight it yet again.




Why are you intentionally glossing over Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2?





Again, the text of Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 overrides anything written in the federalist papers.


You are engaging in sophistry. You are adhering to text when it suits your impeachment argument but pivot to ratification debates when the text negates your theory. That is disingenuous and you know it.

I already dismantled your contention that impeachment applies to members of Congress. Show me the part in the impeachment clause where it says members of congress can be impeached.

Don't bother you can’t.



Agreed. Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 means what it says and says what it means. The only “humpty dumpty” argument is the one being put forth by you.


Good for Alice. My point stands and you have no counterpoint to Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 because it proves your surmise incorrect.

You are obviously correct.

There is really no honest question about it.

But, you are talking to a wall. A retarded wall.

 

[Jets]

Let’s recapitulate what the OP is doing.

He opines that members of Congress can be impeached based on:

Article II, Section 4:

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.

Where is the part where it says members of Congress are included. It doesn’t. The text does not include them. Not only that, it states CIVIL OFFICERS can be impeached.


Then the OP ignores this part:

Article 1 Section 6

• 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.

This specifically says the Congress people are not and cannot be CIVIL Officers.

Lets see the OP explain why this is incorrect.

 

[johnwk]

Let’s recapitulate what the OP is doing.

I will speak for myself.

Our system is based upon positive law.

Our founders intentionally adopted the impeachment process in our Constitution to deal with a federal public servant who violates their public trust. Positive law requires that procedure, and its allotted due process, must be followed, and it excludes our ordinary judicial system unless a party is convicted by the Senate, in which case they are then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)

Although our Supreme Court has never ruled upon this question, it certainly indicated “The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)


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)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

For about the 10th time, they fucked up! Can't you get that though that concrete block on your shoulders where most people have a head?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And when we review the very purpose for impeachment, and its unique due process as expounded upon during the making of our Constitution, and during the constitution's ratification debates, we quickly learn it was intentionally adopted to deal with any public servant who exercises a federal public trust and violates that trust.

Considering our system is based on “positive law”, and that a unique due process procedure was intentionally adopted to deal with public servants who violate their public trust, that procedure is the supreme law and is required to be adhered to, including Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 which, by its very wording, requires conviction by our Senate of a charged party prior to that party being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment”, under our ordinary judicial system.

Keep in mind there are a number of sound reasons for adhering to the special due process procedure written into our Constitution, e.g., in Federalist No. 65 Hamilton elaborates upon why our ordinary judicial system, including our very own Supreme Court, is not the proper venue to try one charged with violating an office of public trust. Hamilton writes:

"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."


Of course, as you have displayed, the fundamental rules of constitutional world are irrelevant, and you prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty meaning of language to our Constitution to achieve your goal:

“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.”

You simply need to file a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the courts have no right to try Menendez until he is impeached and removed from office and see how far a lawyer, if you can find a stupid one, can take it. First, you have no standing to make that claim so any lawyer with a room temp IQ would tell you to take your idea and shove it where the sun does not shine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I will speak for myself.

Our system is based upon positive law.

Our founders intentionally adopted the impeachment process in our Constitution to deal with a federal public servant who violates their public trust. Positive law requires that procedure, and its allotted due process, must be followed, and it excludes our ordinary judicial system unless a party is convicted by the Senate, in which case they are then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)

Although our Supreme Court has never ruled upon this question, it certainly indicated “The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)


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)

Where does impeachment appear in the Constitution. Article II, correct? What branch does Article II cover? The Executive, right.

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch. Senators are members of the Legislative Branch are they not? How can an office, established by Article I be governed by a clause in Article II, when punishment of Representatives and Senators was established in Article I, Section 5.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Impeachment doesn't appear in the Constitution until Article II Section 4 and doesn't address members of the legislative branch at all, that were established in the previous Article. If they intended impeachment to apply to Congress, would that not have been addressed in Article II Section 4?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where does impeachment appear in the Constitution. Article II, correct? What branch does Article II cover? The Executive, right.

Article I establishes the Legislative Branch. Senators are members of the Legislative Branch are they not? How can an office, established by Article I be governed by a clause in Article II, when punishment of Representatives and Senators was established in Article I, Section 5.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Impeachment doesn't appear in the Constitution until Article II Section 4 and doesn't address members of the legislative branch at all, that were established in the previous Article. If they intended impeachment to apply to Congress, would that not have been addressed in Article II Section 4?

logic and facts won't help this guy is delusional.

 

[Jets]

I will speak for myself.

Our system is based upon positive law

Irrelevant to the discussion. This red herring is you dodging the question asked.

Our founders intentionally adopted the impeachment process in our Constitution to deal with a federal public servant who violates their public trust.

Correct. The impeachment clause SPECIFICALLY discusses who can be impeached.

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

Where does it say members of Congress?
Oh wait it doesn't.

Positive law requires that procedure, and its allotted due process, must be followed, and it excludes our ordinary judicial system unless a party is convicted by the Senate, in which case they are then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)

Irrelevant. It has been established that members of Congress are not included in the impeachment clause. The text itself says so.

Although our Supreme Court has never ruled upon this question, it certainly indicated “The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office. Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

Correct. A President can be impeached.

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.

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)

• 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 increased 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 see you refuse to explain what is meant by Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

Why is that?

 

[johnwk]

johnwk said:
I will speak for myself.

Our system is based upon positive law

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Being governed by positive law is certainly relative to the discussion. The impeachment provisions in our Constitution are positive law and as such, we are obligated to observe those provisions, including the allotted due process for a federal public servant who is accused of criminal acts connected to their office of public trust. And we must use this process to the exclusion of our ordinary judicial system unless a party is convicted by the Senate, in which case they are then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:


Quote:

”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.”(my emphasis)

I appreciate you stating your opinions, but they are not in harmony with what was stated during the making of our Constitution, and during the ratification debates which gives context to the text of our Constitution.

As I previously pointed out, although our Supreme Court has never ruled upon the postulate I stated above, it certainly has indicated “ The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office". Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

.

 

[Jets]

Being governed by positive law is certainly relative to the discussion. The impeachment provisions in our Constitution are positive law and as such, we are obligated to observe those provisions, including the allotted due process for a federal public servant who is accused of criminal acts connected to their office of public trust. And we must use this process to the exclusion of our ordinary judicial system unless a party is convicted by the Senate, in which case they are then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:


Quote:

”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.”(my emphasis)

You continue to cherry pick constitutional text when it suits your position, but ignore other text entirely when it opposes your position. You are fooling nobody.

I appreciate you stating your opinions, but they are not in harmony with what was stated during the making of our Constitution, and during the ratification debates which gives context to the text of our Constitution.

Here again the prevarications are astounding. The context of the text in Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 is self explanatory. The problem you have is that it dismantles your entire premise.

As I previously pointed out, although our Supreme Court has never ruled upon the postulate I stated above, it certainly has indicated “ The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that . . .” even the President “. . . remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office". Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

And again you shift the argument without explaining what Article 2 Section 6 Clause 2 says and means. We both know why!

 

[johnwk]

You continue to cherry pick constitutional text when it suits your position, but ignore other text entirely when it opposes your position. You are fooling nobody.

Cherry pick? I suggest you study the written opinions in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which numerous references are made to the founder's own words spoken during the making of our Constitution, and made during the ratification debates, to document the very intentions for which our Constitution's impeachment provisions were adopted,

Your problem is refusing to accept the fundamental rules of constitutional construction to determine what our Constitution means, and you prefer the Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution to accomplish you end goal:

“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.

 

[Jets]

Cherry pick? I suggest you study the written opinions in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which numerous references are made to the founder's own words spoken during the making of our Constitution, and made during the ratification debates, to document the very intentions for which our Constitution's impeachment provisions were adopted,

Your problem is refusing to accept the fundamental rules of constitutional construction to determine what our Constitution means, and you prefer the Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution to accomplish you end goal:

“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.

Explain Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

I’ll wait…..

 

[johnwk]

Explain Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

I’ll wait…..

See: Overview of Federal Office Prohibition

ENJOY!
.

Now, you never explained why you said, "cherry pick". And, we are talking about our constitution's impeachment provisions, not Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.



I suggest you study the written opinions in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which numerous references are made to the founder's own words spoken during the making of our Constitution, and made during the ratification debates, to document the very intentions for which our Constitution's impeachment provisions were adopted,

Why do you constantly avoid acknowledging the very intentions for which our founders adopted our constitution's impeachment provisions as stated during the making of our Constitution, and during the state 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)

 

[Jets]

See: Overview of Federal Office Prohibition

ENJOY!
.

Now, you never explained why you said, "cherry pick". And, we are talking about our constitution's impeachment provisions, not Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.



I suggest you study the written opinions in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which numerous references are made to the founder's own words spoken during the making of our Constitution, and made during the ratification debates, to document the very intentions for which our Constitution's impeachment provisions were adopted,

Why do you constantly avoid acknowledging the very intentions for which our founders adopted our constitution's impeachment provisions as stated during the making of our Constitution, and during the state 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)

So you cannot explain what Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 means.

Got it….

 

[johnwk]

So you cannot explain what Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 means.

Got it….

You never explained why you said, "cherry pick". And, we are talking about our constitution's impeachment provisions, not Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.



I suggest you study the written opinions in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which numerous references are made to the founder's own words spoken during the making of our Constitution, and made during the ratification debates, to document the very intentions for which our Constitution's impeachment provisions were adopted,

Why do you constantly avoid acknowledging the very intentions for which our founders adopted our constitution's impeachment provisions as stated during the making of our Constitution, and during the state 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]

Broken stupid record, one clause does not the whole constitution make. You willfully choose to ignore why your statement is wrong and keep repeating one clause while ignoring the rest of the Constitution.