Jets
Platinum Member
- Jun 29, 2019
- 4,301
- 2,597
- 940
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.
Last edited: