Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[NYcarbineer]

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition. Until then, just admit I am right, and that judges have actually been impeached over nothing more than politics, and that the courts have ruled that since impeachment is a power granted to Congress exclusively, it is unreviewable by them.

Or you could slink away with your tail between your legs.

Do you need me to repeat the question?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors

Felonies and misdemeanors. The law defines these.

and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition.

Go for it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

Suppose one party wins > 2/3 of each house. Constitutionally, they would be allowed to expel the remaining members not in their own parties. Would you not consider this dictatorial?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition. Until then, just admit I am right, and that judges have actually been impeached over nothing more than politics, and that the courts have ruled that since impeachment is a power granted to Congress exclusively, it is unreviewable by them.

Or you could slink away with your tail between your legs.

Do you need me to repeat the question?

No, I need you to define it, like I requested. OR is the problem here that you do not understand English?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors

Felonies and misdemeanors. The law defines these.

The law does no such thing, but thanks for playing.

and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition.

Go for it.

As soon as you define the terms.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Define high crimes and misdemeanors

Felonies and misdemeanors. The law defines these.

The law does no such thing, but thanks for playing.

LOL! The LAW doesn't state what acts are misdemeanors and which are felonies? My Lord you are STUPID.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Felonies and misdemeanors. The law defines these.

The law does no such thing, but thanks for playing.

LOL! The LAW doesn't state what acts are misdemeanors and which are felonies? My Lord you are STUPID.

It does, but the question was about high crimes and misdemeanors, which are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. There fore the law does not define high crimes and misdemeanors as felonies and misdemeanors, which makes you the stupid one. Again I want to thank you for playing.

 

[johnwk]

No, fools, we are not returning to 1791 or before. Not ever going to happen.

You have no problem with a private banking institution’s Notes being made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“ in defiance of our Constitution? How about the Progressives occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and federal taxes laid and collected from profits, gains, and other incomes. Are you comfortable with that too? JWK

One of the great bits about America is that you are entitled to your incorrect narrative of American history that his held by an Infinitesimally small group of people.

And if you are able to get enough to re-amend the Constitution, all the more power to you.

But . . . you won't, and you would still be incorrect.

I see you did not address the questions I posted above nor did your response advance a productive discussion.

JWK

 

[pegwinn]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

Impeachment is for misconduct in office, not issuing unpopular opinions.

That being said, of course, Congress is the ultimate judge of what constitutes misconduct in office.

There are numerous powers in the Constitution that the Founders did not mean to be exercised absolutely. One example is the veto power. If the President vetoed literally every bill he disagreed with, Congress would need a 2/3 majority to do anything about half the time. Another is expulsion. It takes 2/3 of a house to expel its members, but Congress did not intend, for example, for a party that wins 2/3 of a House to go ahead and just expel any member not in its party for the heck of it. Yet - the President in the former example and a house of Congress in the latter example have the Constitutional authority to do these things.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

The law does no such thing, but thanks for playing.

LOL! The LAW doesn't state what acts are misdemeanors and which are felonies? My Lord you are STUPID.

It does, but the question was about high crimes and misdemeanors, which are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. There fore the law does not define high crimes and misdemeanors as felonies and misdemeanors, which makes you the stupid one. Again I want to thank you for playing.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. High Crimes may not be defined by statute, but a misdemeanor is. Thus if someone commits a misdemeanor such as petty theft like shoplifting he or she can be impeached and potentially removed from office.

The literal word counts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

Impeachment is for misconduct in office, not issuing unpopular opinions.

That being said, of course, Congress is the ultimate judge of what constitutes misconduct in office.

There are numerous powers in the Constitution that the Founders did not mean to be exercised absolutely. One example is the veto power. If the President vetoed literally every bill he disagreed with, Congress would need a 2/3 majority to do anything about half the time. Another is expulsion. It takes 2/3 of a house to expel its members, but Congress did not intend, for example, for a party that wins 2/3 of a House to go ahead and just expel any member not in its party for the heck of it. Yet - the President in the former example and a house of Congress in the latter example have the Constitutional authority to do these things.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

LOL! The LAW doesn't state what acts are misdemeanors and which are felonies? My Lord you are STUPID.

It does, but the question was about high crimes and misdemeanors, which are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. There fore the law does not define high crimes and misdemeanors as felonies and misdemeanors, which makes you the stupid one. Again I want to thank you for playing.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. High Crimes may not be defined by statute, but a misdemeanor is. Thus if someone commits a misdemeanor such as petty theft like shoplifting he or she can be impeached and potentially removed from office.

The literal word counts.

You missed the point, high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the constitution, as a result Congress has broad powers of impeachment, and they alone get to define it whenever they impeach someone. Congress has used its power to impeach in cases that were clearly political, and nothing criminal occurred. Some of those instances were actually challenged in court, and the Supreme Court consistently ruled that, because that power is designated to Congress, they have no authority to review it.

 

[g5000]

Why is it that so many object to having a Congressional oversight committee subpoenaing a judge or Justice to explain how a particular decision was arrived at (1), in compliance with the fundamental rules of constitutional law; and (2), how it is in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution?

Why is it that so many don't realize that every judge already explains how their decision was arrived at for every ruling they make and that such opinions are publicly available?

Have you ever bothered to read a Supreme Court decision? Both the majority and minority opinions are right there for you to read! Read one. It should be a real eye opener for you. They go into great detail of their reasoning and the precedents they used to arrive at their decision.

Newt is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. He's counting on the voters' ignorance. He knows damned well Congress would never subpoena a judge to explain their decision for the very reason they already provide all that information to the public.

Only an idiot would believe a judge could actually be impeached for their decision. Christ, every lawyer in the country must be busting a gut laughing at Gingrich.

Not liking a decision is not grounds for impeachment.

 

[johnwk]

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

pegwinn,


I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.”.


I do know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:

“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

This rule 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.


Unfortunately, we have law students who are no longer taught the most fundamental rule of constitutional law [enforcing the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted]. They are taught case law, and then to apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court. But the fact is, our Constitution is the ultimate “precedent” and not supreme court rulings designed to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


But getting back to the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, which is enforcing the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, our very own Supreme Court stated the following in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903):

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."


Bottom line is, when one is curious as to what a particular part of our Constitution means, their most reliable method to satisfy the curiosity would be to research contemporary source material during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, e.g., the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787; and Elliot’s debates (State ratification debates) which are some of the primary sources from which to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!

Applying this rule to the much misrepresented meaning of the phrase “general welfare” which has been used by many to attach their own meaning to our Constitution, in Federalist No. 83, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

And Madison, in No. 41 Federalist writes with regard to the meaning of “general welfare“:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

And in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase as follows to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress or the courts to extended the federal government’s powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

Bottom line is, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the phrase “general welfare” in order to advance our personal whims and fancies.


Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers. This fundamental rule was not followed in the Kelo decision in which Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion in Kelo writes:


” while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.”

But the irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment, the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. Justice Stevens took it upon himself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves within the framework of our constitutional system, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify what amounted to be judicial tyranny and the Court imposing its will upon the people!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the most fundamental rule of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the phrase “public use” as it was understood during the time the Constitution was adopted. He then concludes :


”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”


If we are to restore the greatness of our constitutionally limited system of government and end the legislative and judicial tyranny which our folks in Washington now practice with impunity, we need to start learning the fundamental rules of constitutional law and then punish public servants who intentionally seek to subvert them.



JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress alone can impeach, for whatever reasons it wants. A literalist reading was no more viable in 1791 than in 2011. Can't and won't be done, pegwinn. The Jeffersonian Republicans, after Marbury, demonstrated that impeachment is a political tool.

End of story.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Impeached means indicted. How many were ever convicted and removed from office for other than a high crime or misdemeanor?

Define high crimes and misdemeanors

Felonies and misdemeanors. The law defines these.

and I will list the ones that do not fall under that definition.

Go for it.

The law does NOT define "high crimes and misdemeanors", because this is not a phrase that appears anywhere else in our law EXCEPT for the Constitution when discussing impeachment. It does NOT mean "felonies and misdemeanors". Where the law deals with those, that is exactly what it calls them: felonies and misdemeanors.

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

A much better and more complete explanation of the true meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" than I can give here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Impeachment, ever since Jefferson, has been used as a political tool. Since it the process is constitutional, it certainly is not dictatorial. Hauling a judge before Congress to explain his opinion already written in the opinion: that would be dictatorial and no judge would abide such a congressional summon and no marshall would enforce it.

Impeachment is for misconduct in office, not issuing unpopular opinions.

That being said, of course, Congress is the ultimate judge of what constitutes misconduct in office.

There are numerous powers in the Constitution that the Founders did not mean to be exercised absolutely. One example is the veto power. If the President vetoed literally every bill he disagreed with, Congress would need a 2/3 majority to do anything about half the time. Another is expulsion. It takes 2/3 of a house to expel its members, but Congress did not intend, for example, for a party that wins 2/3 of a House to go ahead and just expel any member not in its party for the heck of it. Yet - the President in the former example and a house of Congress in the latter example have the Constitutional authority to do these things.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

LOL! The LAW doesn't state what acts are misdemeanors and which are felonies? My Lord you are STUPID.

It does, but the question was about high crimes and misdemeanors, which are neither felonies nor misdemeanors. There fore the law does not define high crimes and misdemeanors as felonies and misdemeanors, which makes you the stupid one. Again I want to thank you for playing.

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. High Crimes may not be defined by statute, but a misdemeanor is. Thus if someone commits a misdemeanor such as petty theft like shoplifting he or she can be impeached and potentially removed from office.

The literal word counts.

Not exactly. "Misdemeanors" in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not mean the same thing as it does in the criminal courts, although obviously, an official who went around shoplifting would certainly be said to have violated his oath of office, and be impeachable for that.

 

[pegwinn]

I emphasized the part I have a problem with. What the founders meant is not and never will be relevant. What was written is what counts. Just. read. it. not into it.

I do know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:

“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

This rule is also stated by Jefferson in the following words: ....

.... A literalist reading was no more viable in 1791 than in 2011. Can't and won't be done, pegwinn. The Jeffersonian Republicans, after Marbury, demonstrated that impeachment is a political tool.

End of story.

Hi folks.

I must disagree. The verbatim reading (the literal word) of the Constitution is more than sufficient to garner the intentions of the founders/writers/framers et al. No supporting document is needed in any event.

Consider please:

The constitution was written by a series of committees that overlapped in some areas and argued long into the night over the placement of words. I submit that if there were five members of a committee that there were five specific intents. I further submit that once the words were on paper, the intents could be said to have been reconciled. In other words, the completed passage was the intent.

This process went further and unto ratification. There were many arguments posted in the communications media of the day. Today one of those media would be this very board, and others like it. To ascribe the same level of meaning from the Federalist papers is to ascribe the same level of authority. Would we place the same level on the discussions in this forum? Of course not.

To quote one of the famous framers simply calls out the stated opinion of one member of the series of committees that drafted the document. Doing that places the person above all the others who contributed as well.

Finally, the verbatim reading of the literal words binds the federal government to a limited role. By divining the "intent" of persons long dead; or worse "interpreting" the document as if it were a foreign language, unshackles the limits and we arrive at today.

We can change the documents words. We cannot change it's "intent". If intent is all that matters why bother with an amendment process?

 

[paperview]

Hi peg.

OK. Back to where I started from earlier.

Give us the LITERAL meaning of "cruel and unusual punishments" as penned in the Constitution.

Go 'head. Be SPECIFIC. I am looking forward to your...dare I say...interpretation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a Supreme Court judge was subpoenaed to explain a decision, all he'd have to do is refuse it,

and then appeal it to the judiciary on constitutional grounds, which would mean, eventually,

it would end up before the Supreme Court.

 

[paperview]

If a Supreme Court judge was subpoenaed to explain a decision, all he'd have to do is refuse it,

and then appeal it to the judiciary on constitutional grounds, which would mean, eventually,

it would end up before the Supreme Court.

It's clear they don't think these things through.

 

[pegwinn]

Hi peg.

Yo PPV what's up

OK. Back to where I started from earlier.

Not sure what you mean so I guess I missed that. Got Link?

Give us the LITERAL meaning of "cruel and unusual punishments" as penned in the Constitution.

Go 'head. Be SPECIFIC. I am looking forward to your...dare I say...interpretation.

Obviously you dared. Good question.

It means any punishment that meets the definition of cruel and said punishment is not the usual recourse. So, I may impose a cruel punishment. I may impose an unusual punishment. But not both.

I tried to find a 1770's give or take dictionary. The best I found was the 1828 Websters online. A trip to the local library might prove worthwhile. But since today is my last day of time off.... taint happenin. If you have an older online dictionary that refutes my answer I will be really interested in scoping it out.

Cruel: According to 1828 Websters
Unusual: According to 1828 Websters

Glad to help.