Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Man, you bring a new dedication to stupidity. Nothing those people said is written into the Constitution, which you would know had you actually read it.
Federal Court in New York lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #63
I really do not like to jump on the rumor mill, but since it has already been reported see:
Menendez single-handedly blocked a bipartisan effort to strengthen the law regulating foreign influence in Washington
The New Jersey senator, charged last week with accepting bribes, halted a 2020 proposal fueled by widespread concerns that foreign influence campaigns had infiltrated American politics.
www.nbcnews.com
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,470
- 31,408
- 2,905
Okay Feinstein is pushing up daisies. Geez I find it very amusing that she would be pushing a bill like that since she was pretty much owned by China.I really do not like to jump on the rumor mill, but since it has already been reported see:
Menendez single-handedly blocked a bipartisan effort to strengthen the law regulating foreign influence in Washington
The New Jersey senator, charged last week with accepting bribes, halted a 2020 proposal fueled by widespread concerns that foreign influence campaigns had infiltrated American politics.
The other guy I'm not familiar with. So they think Menendez was trying to protect himself? I wonder who sicked the DOJ on him?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #66
I doubt if the truth will ever be revealed. One thing for certain, Congress puts to shame the old saying "den of thieves".
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,470
- 31,408
- 2,905
Damn straight
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,470
- 31,408
- 2,905
I thought his explanation for his vote choice was pretty reasonable. But then again he usually is pretty reasonable. Hell Manchin single-handedly held up legislation and they didn't sick DOJ on him.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
I swear you get dumber by the minute. Read your source again. Those were comments for the debate over ratification. They were simply wrong about what was contained in the Constitution. Where is the right to impeach Representatives and Senators in the Constitution? This is a specific exclusion regarding disciplining members of Congress.
If Senators can be impeached, why has one never been impeached in our 233 year history under the Constitution? Why has no senator ever been removed from office by the Senate via impeachment? Who presides over the trial of a Senator?
Why were the Senators expelled at the beginning of the Civil war not impeached for treason?
Keep doubling and tripling down on your error. No one is impressed.
Are you also a space denier, flat earther, or any other conspiracy theorist?
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,939
- 38,977
- 3,645
OK. GOod luck with that
- Thread starter
- #71
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Wrong. If they are not civil officers then they aren’t possibly subject to the provision which applies to the Executive branch and the judicial branch.
LMNOP
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Once again, you lie by omission. Post the rest of the story.
Have you lost what little self-respect you seemed to have?
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
The Senate dismissed the impeachment on the ground that senators are not civil officers subject to impeachment.
Funny JWK neglected to mention that.
- Thread starter
- #75
No. That is not true. Let me enlighten you to the truth and facts.
The then Senator William Blount, was in fact the first member of Congress to be impeached by the House.
The impeachment revolved around a letter Sen. Blount wrote which, as stated by the then Attorney General Mr. Rawle, confirmed the following: that William Blount’s letter was a crime, that the crime was that of a misdemeanor, and that William Blount being a Senator, was liable to impeachment for said crime before the Senate. And on July 7th, 1797 the House, which has “sole power” to impeach:
And, in compliance with that order, the House presented ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.
The Senate did expel Blount and ordered him to appear for trial which he never did, but the trial still moved forward in the Senate. LINK
During the Senate trial of Blount, an interesting debate formed as to whether or not Blount was a “civil officer” within the meaning of our Constitution, but the question was never definitively resolved.
During the trial the Senate did defeat a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer, but after the vote uncertainty remained if a Senator could be impeached who no longer held their office of public trust (considering Blount had been expelled), and if a Senator, as mentioned in the Constitution, is within the meaning of a “civil officer”.
Now, with respect to the last unresolved question - if a member of Congress is within the constitutional meaning of a civil officer - and to avoid supplanting our personal opinions as the rule of law, our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when including the process of impeachment in our Constitution.
And the historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provide a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE the impeachment provisions were intentionally adopted to deal with anyone who abuses their federal public trust.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Yes. What I posted IS true.
And what you’re now trying to coverup is your own ignorance.
The Senate was allowed to remove its own member pursuant to the authority in the Constitution. That authority was not grounded in“impeachment” as the Senate properly concluded.
Representative and Senators are not civil officers of the United States.
You remain fairly wrong, exposed as wrong and too stubborn and dishonest to just concede your error.
I can and have showed you the Constitutional evidence. I can’t make you accept reality and I can’t compel you to be honest. Oh well.
- Thread starter
- #77
The Senate having the power to remove its own members has never been in dispute by me.
What is in dispute is your personal opinion that Representatives and Senators are not civil officers within the meaning of our Constitution, and that question to this very date, has not been answered by our Supreme Court.
And in order to answer that question our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when they included the process of impeachment in our Constitution.
Finally, the historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provides an answer to what evil our founders were addressing when adding the impeachment provisions to our Constitution. The PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE confirms our founders provided the impeachment provisions to deal with all those who may abuse their federal public trust.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Good. Because that’s what the Senate did to Blount.
Nope. That’s not an “opinion.” It’s fact based on the words I quoted from the Constitution itself. The fact that you choose to ignore it makes you a demonstrable charlatan.
No need. They address cases and controversies. There is no case. There is no controversy. The Constitution still says exactly what it says —as I have quoted a couple of times.
Nope. We could (unlike you) just see what it actually says. Oh wait. I did. You choose to pretend otherwise.
Nope.
The Constitution isn’t even slightly unclear on this point. Your unwillingness to acknowledge those words doesn’t change anything.
EIEIO
The Constitution doesn’t require that its meaning be “discovered” when its words are crystal clear.
United States Constitution, Article II.
See? The Constitution, itself, limits impeachment.
And, again, despite your refusal to acknowledge it, the Constitution also notes that Senators and Congressmen are distinguished from “civil officers” specifically prohibiting them from being “civil officers.”
United States Constitution , Article II, Section 6, cl. 2.
It really couldn’t be any more clear.
- Thread starter
- #79
According to your opinion it's a fact.
Having said that, let me take this opportunity to lay out the facts concerning the impeachment of Senator William Blount, with links where the facts are established.
To begin with, the impeachment of Senator Blount revolved around a letter he wrote.
On July 6th, 1797, the then, Attorney General, Mr. Rawle, confirmed the following: that William Blount's letter was a crime, that the crime was that of a misdemeanor, and that William Blount being a Senator, was liable to impeachment for said crime before the Senate. LINK
And on July 7th, 1797, after debate, the House, which has “sole power” to impeach determined the following:
“Resolved, That William Blount, a Senator of the United States for the State of Tennessee, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.”
and
“Ordered, That Mr. Sitgreaves do go to the Senate, and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the People of the United States, impeach William Blount, a Senator of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and acquaint the Senate that this House will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same.” LINK
And, in compliance with the above order, the House presented ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM BLOUNT to the Senate.
On July, 8th, the Senate officially expel Blount LINK
Aside from Blount being expelled by the Senate, the Senate did engage in a lengthy debate concerning constitutional issues involved with the impeachment of Blount. That debate begins HERE ON PAGE 2248
Among other things, the debate covered whether or not Blount was a “civil officer” within the meaning of our Constitution, but the question was never definitively resolved.
As the proceeding moved forward, the Senate did defeat a resolution that asserted William Blount was an impeachable officer, but in spite of the vote, uncertainty remained if a Senator could be impeached who no longer held their office of public trust (considering Blount had been expelled), and if a Senator, as mentioned in the Constitution, was within the meaning of a “civil officer”.
One compelling argument made by Senator Bayard, that a member of Congress was within the meaning of “civil officer” was because of existing legislation. That Legislation was enacted, March 1, 1792—An Act relative to the Election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the Officer who shall act as President in case of Vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President. LINK
According to the legislation the “officers” eligible were first the president pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the House second, and as such, they clearly fall within the definition of being officers of the United States.
In conclusion, with respect to the currently unresolved question - if a member of Congress is within the constitutional meaning of a civil officer - and to avoid supplanting our personal opinions as the rule of law, our only legitimate recourse it to do our best to uncover the evil which our founders were trying to address when including the process of impeachment in our Constitution.
The historical record during the making of our Constitution, along with the ratification debates of our Constitution, provide documentation of the evil being addressed and is shown to be, by a PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, that the impeachment provisions were intentionally adopted by our Founders to deal with anyone who abuses their federal public trust.
.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
No. According to the Constitution, itself, it’s a fact.
Your denial is based on your inability to acknowledge your own obvious mistake.
Go with that. It will make you look very shmart.
EIEIO
.
Similar threads
