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

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?


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

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.


"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

debate, i.e. argument.

what did the other side say?

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

1 Like

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.


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

of course you didn’t

And what am I to infer by that? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


In THIS POST you remarked “This was resolved back in 1797,” but you never divulged what exactly “was resolved”. I assumed you were referring to the William Blount affair of 1797, but that did not make any sense because, 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:

“Resolved, That William Blount, a Senator of the United States for the State of Tennessee, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“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.” SOURCE

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.

So, once again, TheDoctorIsIn, I ask you what did you mean by “This was resolved back in 1797”?


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)

I see you still have not stated what was “resolved back in 1797”. But in respect to your insinuation, Senator Bayard points out, by actual legislation that a member of Congress is within the meaning of “civil officer” 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, members of Congress are within the definition of being “officers” of the United States. SOURCE

And the above is in addition to our Founders own words confirming members of Congress were intended to be subject to impeachment.

So, my question is, how does a federal district court by-pass our Constitution’s due process procedure for one holding an office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust?


Not really following this trial but if the court has no jurdisction over this case why hasnt his lawyers made this argument or have they?

I’m not sure why you ask me that question. I have no way to read their minds. Perhaps you ought to ask Menendez’s lawyers if you are really that curious.

Aside from that, here is a LINK to Sen. Robert Menendez’s memorandum of law in support of his motion to dismiss.

Also see:

Seems as though his lawyers are barking up the wrong tree. The only good news I see for Menendez is, the current court’s obvious lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the case, even after trial and on appeal.