Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sure it does. You're claiming the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over a Senator because of the Constitutional impeachment clause. Odds that not one of the dozen indicted Senators would have made this argument to dismiss their indictment is zero. That doesn't even take into account all of the House Representatives indicted while in office.I appreciate the link you provided, but nowhere in its content does it discredit or devalue the documentation I provided HERE, confirming members of Congress are not immune from the impeachment process.
It is the words of the Constitution which show how wrong you are.All I see is you attempting to apply the Humpty Humpty theory of language to the meaning of our Constitution:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
.
When one reads the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution it confirms the very purpose of impeachment was to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust, who violates that trust and commits criminal acts, such as bribery, that are related to his office of public trust.
“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74”
I am of the opinion that the first step to deal with Sen. Menendez is the have the Senate convict him of the charges, which then opens the door for him being "… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and in a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:
”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
Impeachment does not apply to a Senator, thank you very much! Check what the Constitutions says regarding disciplining members of Congress.Yup. Impeachment, and its specific due process, is for the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
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.
I am happy to see you finally figured that out.
He has been told and shown.Impeachment does not apply to a Senator, thank you very much! Check what the Constitutions says regarding disciplining members of Congress.
The Constitution directs how each House is in charge of disciplining their members. That discipline does not include civil justice, just like impeachment.Your deflection is noted.
If you disagree a Senator is a civil officer of the U.S., then provide your documentation.
You might try reading it and see how wrong you are. I used to teach the Constitution years ago, and it has NOT changed!No where does the Constitution suggest members of Congress are exempt from impeachment. But as documented HERE our founders, in their very own words, confirm members of Congress are not exempt from the impeachment process.
But hey, I can fully understand the motive of those who prefer to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
Your innuendo is irrelevant and does not discredit or devalue the documentation I provided HERE, confirming members of Congress are not immune from the impeachment process.Sure it does. You're claiming the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over a Senator because of the Constitutional impeachment clause. Odds that not one of the dozen indicted Senators would have made this argument to dismiss their indictment is zero. That doesn't even take into account all of the House Representatives indicted while in office.
Thank you for your opinions. Now, substantiate your claim of how wrong I am, and do so with appropriate documentation.You might try reading it and see how wrong you are. I used to teach the Constitution years ago, and it has NOT changed!
Several people on this thread have already posted the reference to the Constitution. Do you have them on Ignore because they are proving how inept you are?Thank you for your opinions. Now, substantiate your claim of how wrong I am, and do so with appropriate documentation.
And, BTW, when I studied constitutional law, several decades ago, I was taught the most fundamental principle of constitutional Constuction is to adhere to the text of the Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
Several people on this thread have already posted the reference to the Constitution. Do you have them on Ignore because they are proving how inept you are?
'
You are simply wrong. Members of the House and Senate are disciplined by their respective bodies. The impeachment and removal of a federal officer is restricted to that alone. there is no criminal punishment, which must be enforced by the Executive branch through the courts. It's called separation of powers to most high school educated people.
You ignore the Constitutional provision which clearly proves you are dead wrong.Once again you post opinions and ignore the very intentions and beliefs of our founders which I provided HERE, confirming members of Congress are not immune from the impeachment process.
I prefer to give credibility to our Founders statements concerning the true meaning of our constitution, as opposed to your unsubstantiated OPINIONS.He has been told and shown.
He prefers his stubbornness and the safety of his ignorance.
According to you, who has continually avoided substantiating absurd claims which you post.You ignore the Constitutional provision which clearly proves you are dead wrong.
Sucks to be you.
Well, as of yet, they have not, and their motion to dismiss has been rejected:One would think the lawyers for at least one of the dozen Senators would have brought up your theory when indicted while in office.
Nonsense. If what you just posted were true, you’d accept what they wrote. As I previously noted it for you: Art I, Section 6, Cl. 2:I prefer to give credibility to our Founders statements concerning the true meaning of our constitution, as opposed to your unsubstantiated OPINIONS.
Section 6: Rights and Disabilities of Members
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
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.
Absolutely spectacular thread. The back and forth arguments here are equal to a high level courtroom with experienced lawyers going at it on both sides. I don't really have a dog in the fight. I can say that I have always liked Senstor Menendez and to a greater oy lesser extent I still do. If I could add anything to the back and forth debating I think it would be not an assertion but a question.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.
False. Unlike you, I substantiated my point previously at least twice plus again just a moment ago. I did so by citing to and accurately quoting the Constitution.According to you, who has continually avoided substantiating absurd claims which you post.
You ask the right question! And some have already speculated upon the answer.Absolutely spectacular thread. The back and forth arguments here are equal to a high level courtroom with experienced lawyers going at it on both sides. I don't really have a dog in the fight. I can say that I have always liked Senstor Menendez and to a greater oy lesser extent I still do. If I could add anything to the back and forth debating I think it would be not an assertion but a question.
Given that his conduct is quite common amongst his peers in-house and Senate, I wonder who he pissed off? What exactly did he do to be singled out for this prosecution?
Jo
Nothing you quoted from the Constitution verifies a member of Congress is exempt from impeachment. You are projecting your personal interpretation of those clauses. And your personal interpretation of those clauses is not in harmony with the very words of our founders, which were made during the making of our Constitution, and our Constitution's ratification debates, a portion of which I have documented HERE, all of which confirms, members of Congress are subject to the impeachment process laid out in our Constitution.Nonsense. If what you just posted were true, you’d accept what they wrote. As I previously noted it for you: Art I, Section 6, Cl. 2:
They are not “civil officers” of the United States. Thus, they are not subject to the impeachment provision (which isn’t even found in Article I.)
You don’t accept what they wrote IN the Constitution itself.
Do tell? I am burning with curiosity to know why he is in the crosshairs; and I certainly don't buy that it's because of bribery. If that were the case the entire Congress would be on trial.You ask the right question! And some have already speculated upon the answer.
