Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
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
But, 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?
Let us apply the fundamental rules of constitutional construction
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
There is no subversion of anything. Your interpretation is just incorrect.
Seems to me you are ignoring the fundamental rules which govern the meaning of our Constitution.
Intent of constitution
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
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.
16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
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) Congress 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 used during the legislative process when a provision was adopted.
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)
Seems to me you are ignoring the fundamental rules which govern the meaning of our Constitution.
Intent of constitution
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
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.
16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”
Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )
Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )
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) Congress 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 used during the legislative process when a provision was adopted.
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)
.
None of that wall of words makes sense or is relevant. Your entire argument is that anyone in office cannot be prosecuted for a crime unless they are impeached and removed from office by the Senate, with is ridiculous. Under your argument, Menendez could have killed 500 people and unless he was removed from office, he could never be prosecuted. Think about how unbelievable that is.
Article 1, Section2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
Quote:
They [the Senators and Representatives] 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
The Constitution explicitly does not shield the members of the US Congress from prosecution for felonies.
Another fun fact - impeachment does not apply to members of the US Congress, per the Constitution each chamber of the legislature has the sole power to punish or expel one of their own members.
Article 1, Section2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
The Constitution explicitly does not shield the members of the US Congress from prosecution for felonies.
Another fun fact - impeachment does not apply to members of the US Congress, per the Constitution each chamber of the legislature has the sole power to punish or expel one of their own members.
Yep. The Constitution explicitly contemplates and implicitly authorizes members' arrest for crimes, shielding arrest only for certain offenses when members are traveling to or attending sessions of Congress. No need to look to Hamilton on this. The constitutional text is clear as day.
I hope Democrats continue to vote for Bob Menendez, he was literally caught red-handed having sexual relations outside of the United State with children. Wouldn't that make him a pedophile? The foolish Democrats still voted the guy in.
The Governor of NJ has a ton of foreign bribe money, and still hardly a peep from the Democrats.
No wonder 100,000 people show up to a Trump Rally in NJ, and then line the streets for 3 miles for his entrance.
Your entire argument is that anyone in office cannot be prosecuted for a crime unless they are impeached and removed from office by the Senate . . .
As is usually the case, you made that up, and that is probably why you failed to quote my words confirming your accusation.
What you continually overlook is the distinction between acts which are public in nature and connected to a federal actor's public trust, and private acts and conduct, which are not connected to federal actor's public trust__ the former intended to be dealt with under our Constitution’s impeachment due process, while the latter is to be dealt with under our ordinary judicial system and its allotted due process.
Our Founder's own words indicate members of Congress can be impeached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
Another fun fact - impeachment does not apply to members of the US Congress, per the Constitution each chamber of the legislature has the sole power to punish or expel one of their own members.
Let us pursue your "fun fact", that ". . . impeachment does not apply to members of the US Congress..."
When reviewing the making of our Constitution I have found a preponderance of evidence indicating our Founders intended the impeachment process to apply to all those holding a federal office of public trust, and without distinction.
As I previously documented, 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.”
And during the South Carolina ratification debates, 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”.
Rather than me declaring what our Constitution means, I am one of the few who actually makes a sincere effort to document its meaning as stated during its making, and by those who actually took part in its making.
And that brings me to the following dilemma. I cannot understand how you arrive at the notion, and can truthfully declare, ". . . impeachment does not apply to members of the US Congress...", when our founder's very words indicates otherwise?
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let us apply the fundamental rules of constitutional construction
