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

[Jets]

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 absolutely did. You are being intentionally obtuse. When you explain what it means then we have something to discuss. Until then your paltering is dismissed.

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 is not only germane to YOUR OP topic , it answers the question why Senator Menandez did not have to be impeached before being brought up on federal charges.

You are ignoring it because it blows up your errable premise.

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,

That applies to The President who can be impeached. On this point you are correct.

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.:

Again, you continue to deflect because Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 destroys your argument. That is why you will talk about anything else. Intent does not hold more weight than the words themselves.

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

The text is self explanatory. It holds more wait than ANY OTHER SOURCE you try to promulgate.

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)

Either we discuss ALL of the appropriate texts or by all means keep embarrassing yourself.

 

[johnwk]

I absolutely did. You are being intentionally obtuse. When you explain what it means then we have something to discuss. Until then your paltering is dismissed.

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 is not only germane to YOUR OP topic ,

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment as documented HERE In fact, the word "impeach" does not even appear in the lengthy overview given with respect to Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

Stop making shit up.


And 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”.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment as documented HERE In fact, the word "impeach" does not even appear in the lengthy overview given with respect to Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

Stop making shit up.


And 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”.

It states who is not an officer. Retard.

 

[johnwk]

It states who is not an officer. Retard.

Within a particular context . . . those receiving compensation and restricting the holding of two offices at same time.

And 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”.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Within a particular context . . . those receiving compensation and restricting the holding of two offices at same time.

And 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”.

Senators and Congressmen are not impeached, the article establishing Congress clearly leaves to each house the disciplining of its members to include expulsion. There is no fathomable reason to impeach anyone that is a senator or congressman.

 

[johnwk]

Senators and Congressmen are not impeached, the article establishing Congress clearly leaves to each house the disciplining of its members to include expulsion. There is no fathomable reason to impeach anyone that is a senator or congressman.

According to you there is no reason to impeach a member of Congress who exercises a federal office of public trust and violates that trust. One reason is, after being impeached and found guilty, the offender is then "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."


And according to our Founders own words, members of Congress come within the category of those exercising a federal public trust, and the very purpose of adopting an impeachment process is to deal with anyone who abuses a federal public trust. Let us review our Founders own words:

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”.

 

[Crepitus]

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, for alleged criminal Acts - accepting bribes as a Senator of the United States, and illegally acting as a foreign agent, on behalf of Egypt and Qatar – which violate his office of public trust. His trial begins today 9/15/2024 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In fact, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez because the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to try a federal officer who is accused of criminal conduct affecting his office of public trust, was intentionally placed in the Senate’s hands and not a federal district court, unless being first convicted by the Senate.

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."
.

Some provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

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

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

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."

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."

Why are so many determined to subvert the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution, to deal with a federal office holder who is accused of criminal acts which violate their office of public trust?

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.

Yeah, I don't think that's true.

 

[johnwk]

Yeah, I don't think that's true.

What isn't "true"? Your cryptic innuendo is not clear.

 

[Jets]

Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2 has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment as documented HERE

You are trolling. That clause explains EXACTLY why members of Congress are not Civil Officers. Only the President, Vice President and Civil Officers can be impeached. FACT.

In fact, the word "impeach" does not even appear in the lengthy overview given with respect to Article 1 Section 6 Clause 2.

Deflection. You are intentionally ignoring what the words mean. Stop playing obtuse, it’s insulting.

Stop making shit up.

Explaining constitutional text is making shit up?

You are dismissed.

And 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”.

You can repeat this intent and federalist papers argument, but the text will continue to refute that position.

You have lost this argument over and over. Keep enjoying that egg on your face.

The entire forum sees your desperate desire to keep parroting talking points….

 

[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.

The OP still cannot explain why this is incorrect.

 

[johnwk]

You are trolling. That clause explains EXACTLY why members of Congress are not Civil Officers.

What that section covers, is exactly what I stated. In the Section's context, it covers those receiving compensation and it restricts the holding of two offices at same time. And HERE is the documentation.

And with reference to who was intended to be subject to impeachment, according to our Founders own words, members of Congress come within the category of those exercising a federal public trust, and the very purpose of adopting an impeachment process is to deal with anyone who abuses a federal public trust. Let us review our Founders own words:

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”.

And when a dispute arises as to the meaning of our Constitution, our very own Supreme Court resolves the issue in the following manner


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]

What that section covers, is exactly what I stated. In the Section's context, it covers those receiving compensation and it restricts the holding of two offices at same time. And HERE is the documentation.

Members of Congress cannot be Civil Officers. Therefore members of Congress are NOT impeachable REGARDLESS OF what the HoR did with William Blount.

And with reference to who was intended to be subject to impeachment, according to our Founders own words, members of Congress come within the category of those exercising a federal public trust, and the very purpose of adopting an impeachment process is to deal with anyone who abuses a federal public trust. Let us review our Founders own words:

Text beats founders intent EVERYTIME.

You have lost this argument. Stop wasting my time.

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”.

And when a dispute arises as to the meaning of our Constitution, our very own Supreme Court resolves the issue in the following manner


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)

And the ostriching continues….

 

[johnwk]

Explaining constitutional text is making shit up?

You are dismissed.

Offering a sophomoric explanation which violates the fundamental rules of Constitutional Constitution, and is not in harmony with the Constitution's documented legislative intent, as you have, is making shit up.

JWK


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.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[Jets]

Offering a sophomoric explanation which violates the fundamental rules of Constitutional Constitution, and is not in harmony with the Constitution's documented legislative intent, as you have, is making shit up.

Text wins, you lose.

Again

JWK


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.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Blah blah blah….

 

[Jets]

The OP still cannot explain why this is incorrect.

Still waiting OP….

 

[johnwk]

Text wins, you lose.

Again





Blah blah blah….

Your sophomoric opinion is noted, and rejected by the court.

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court addresses your misguided belief:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) confirms the truth of the matter as follows:

"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.


You may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).

And this is in harmony with what the Court stated in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


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.

Also see the following:


“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the courts primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967)

And let us not forget what is stated in American Jurisprudence:

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. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


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]

Again for the fundamentally challenged:

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 does it say members of Congress can be impeached?

It doesn’t

Where does it say members of Congress are Civil Officers?

It doesn’t

Article I​

• Section 6 Rights and Disabilities​

  • Clause 2
  • 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.

Here it states in clear lucid text that members of Congress are not, I repeat not Civil Officers…


Here it is again johnwk

Do you enjoy being embarrassed over and over!

 

[Jets]

Your sophomoric opinion is noted, and rejected by the court.

Ok, name any member of Congress who has been impeached since William Blount.

I‘ll wait….

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court addresses your misguided belief:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) confirms the truth of the matter as follows:

"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.


You may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).

And this is in harmony with what the Court stated in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


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.

Also see the following:


“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the courts primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967)

And let us not forget what is stated in American Jurisprudence:

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. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


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.

So you will continue to ignore text that does not support your nonsense.

Keep trolling….

 

[johnwk]

Again for the fundamentally challenged:

Article II, Section 4:

Thank you for your interpretation. The Section only applies to those receiving compensation, and it restricts the holding of two offices at same time. And HERE is the documentation.

 

[Jets]

Thank you for your interpretation. The Section only applies to those receiving compensation, and it restricts the holding of two offices at same time. And HERE is the documentation.

It says CONGRESSMAN CANNOT BE CIVIL OFFICERS.

Do you understand basic English?