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

Politics
11

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?

12

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
13

Where is this written?

2 Likes
14

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

15

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
.

16

What an odd thread.

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

Impeachment doesn’t apply to congress folk.

17

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
18

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

1 Like
19

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)

20

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

21

What you say above, with regard to the Senate expelling a member, was never disputed by me. But your contention that ". . . its highly doubtful they [the Senate] can impeach them [one of their own members] since they are NOT government officers . . " is something to be pursued.

You are correct. The Senate cannot impeach. That power is placed solely in the House. But, the more important question is, can a Senator be impeached, tried and convicted?

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 one can truthfully declare, “Impeachment doesn’t apply to congress folk…”SOURCE, when a preponderance of documented evidence indicates otherwise.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

22

It is a reality of the uniqueness of the authority of the chief executive. He is the executive branch. Every other member, appointed or hired, is simply his agent, exercising power delegated by the President. That is why there is the impeachment power located outside the executive branch within the co-equal elected legislative branch.

23

The impeachment power. Not the conditional requirement for prosecution. When the constitution was written the English system of impeaching and prosecuting politicians was already known since England utilized it

The founders did not adopt such a system and specifically restricted it to impeachment

Nothing about impeachment being a condition predicate for prosecution is written anywhere.

Saying something is the “reality of” is akin to saying that the constitution is a living breathing document. If we start adopting the “reality of” standard we could have a lot of fun with all the amendments.

24

You ignore the unique powers of the president. Federal law enforcement answers to the President, as part of the executive branch. The Prosecutors who would bring charges are his subordinates, serving at his pleasure. You have to remove him from office before you can effectively do either of these. The only venue for removal of a President is the impeachment process.

1 Like
25

I think we are discussing two different possibilities.

I am describing post presidency prosecution

With regards to prosecution during the presidency you are of course 100 percent correct that removal is a precursor to prosecution. It would be absolutely insane n to prosecute a sitting president.

26

debate, i.e. argument.

what did the other side say?

27

Post presidency, an individual is a private citizen and none of this matters.

1 Like
28

What did the other side say? What “other side” are you referring to?

I have found nothing to substantiate a noticeable contention existed, that members of Congress could not be impeached, during the making of the Constitution, or during its ratification debates. Those here who express an opinion to the contrary, are simply projecting a personal, and unsubstantiated belief, concerning the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK

29

I’m still waiting for you to explain, what was “resolved back in 1797”.

30

of course you didn’t