Federal District Court has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez's alleged crimes

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.

And away we go again.

I do give you credit for applying your standard to the dems.

It’s going to fall flat on its face as there have been numerous prosecutions of sitting congressmen without impeachment. And none of them have made your imagined argument. But all the best of luck with your cherry picking.

1 Like

Hamilton imagined what he stated, in Federalist 65?

What is stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7 of our Constitution, is an imagination?

”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?

Oh crap here we go again.

Wont be long before @johnwk2 starts another thread on citizenship :grinning:

3 Likes

It doesn’t change that in the entire history of prosecuted politicians your standard has never been applied. Many of them were prosecuted for political acts. Your standard ia completely imagined and requires ignoring what is actually written.

However so as not start our repetition again. I am going to move on. Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor.

1 Like

How sweet of you to ignore 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.

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)

What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? Is there something in the OP which you find in error?

.

The Federalist Papers are, for all intents and purposes, Op-Eds.

What the Constitution says in Article 2; Section 4 is the relevant part:

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.

Notice how “Members of Congress” are not included on that list. This was resolved back in 1797.

2 Likes

Its a joke, get a sense of humor.

I have to concur here. Judges may be arrested and indicted while in office. Members of Congress may be arrested and indicted while in office. Political appointees may be arrested and indicted while in office. The only position in our government that requires removal from office before arrest and prosecution is the President.

Oh. to the contrary. 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 to 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?

This is by far the dumbest interpretation of the constitution yet. Members of Congress do not get impeached, they get expelled according to their own rules. Congresspersons are not “civil officers”.

1 Like

Where is this written?

1 Like

Seems to me you are saying our founder’s own words concerning the issue are ". . . the dumbest interpretation of the constitution yet . . . "?

There is nothing to joke about or stimulate a sense of humor, when one considers how our federal Constitution, a bedrock of Western civilization, is pretended to mean what those in power wish it to mean, who then enforced its perversions upon the people.

But hey, I’m sure you would find great company with those Nero types, who fiddled and joked while Rome burned.

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
.

What an odd thread.

Menedez belongs in jail, and he’s gonna end up there.

Impeachment doesn’t apply to congress folk.

yes, his op ed is pretty stupid.

The federalist papers are not a key to the constitution, they are a running argument between some founders who had themselves different interpretations.

1 Like

Sheesh, you must be a laugh at a minute at parties.

1 Like

As I documented HERE, the Federalist Papers, as well as various notes on the Convention 1787, and the State Ratification Debates [Elliots Debates], are all acknowledged sources to assist in determining the true meaning of our Constitution as stated by those who framed it, and those who participated in its ratification. How else are we to determine our Constitution’s true meaning when questions arise if not by having recourse to our Founders’ expressed intentions and beliefs when making it? Are we to instead embrace and accept a Humpty Dumpty theory of language put upon us by those in power?

“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.”

Or, perhaps we should diligently work to discover the intentions and beliefs under which our constitution was agreed upon, as documented from historical records, which gives context to its text.

What good is having a written constitution, agreed upon by the people if those in power are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

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)

you can read all the op eds you want to try to discover its meaning.

The Senate can expell a member without impeaching them

so can the house.

In fact, its highly doubtful they can impeach them since they are NOT government officers