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