Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-23-2024, 03:56 PM
    . . See: 'Insult to injury': Florida lawmakers erupt over Cuban officials touring secure parts of top airport May 22, 2024 "Florida lawmakers in Congress are demanding answers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about Cuban officials touring secure areas of the Miami International Airport, raising national security concerns from both local and national lawmakers."
    0 replies | 138 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-23-2024, 01:11 PM
    I like their position on taxation which would bring us back to our Constitution's original tax plan and is in align with The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.
    5 replies | 291 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-23-2024, 12:13 PM
    . :rolleyes: Of course I haven't. The subject of the thread has to do with our Founder's reasons for putting the impeachment process, and its due process, in our Constitution. As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made ďÖ liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to LawĒ, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-21-2024, 10:54 AM
    I see you have yet to respond to THIS POST .
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-21-2024, 07:10 AM
    I didn't know you are a Trump apologist. Aside from that, the historical evidence confirms, impeachment's due process procedure is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violates that trust. And that fact has nothing to do with your absurd political partisan nonsense. 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)
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 02:43 PM
    See the INDICTMENT for what is being charged. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, the prosecutorial jurisdiction question, as related to one who holds an office of public trust and uses that office to engage in criminal conduct, as I have presented it, has never been tested in the Supreme Court. But see: Smith v. United States, where a unanimous court held that when a venue for a criminal trial was improper, the conviction should be vacated with the possibility of a retrial. Seems quite clear one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust, must first be convicted by our Senate which would then make a federal district court, a court of competent jurisdiction, to further try the convicted party "according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 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.
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 01:46 PM
    Yes. Of course, I am assuming you agree that one who holds a federal office of public trust and violates that public trust by engaging in criminal acts using their office of public trust, must first be convicted by the Senate, which then opens the door to being "... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and by a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 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.
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 01:18 PM
    It appears you are now agreeing that both Trump and Menendez are being prosecuted in a court without proecutorial jurisdiction because neither have been convicted by the Senate, which is necessary to then be prosecuted in a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7: ĒJudgment 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."
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 12:36 PM
    I appreciate your opinion, but it is not in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and its due process procedure intentionally adopted to deal with a federal office holder of criminal acts while in office. I am talking about the due process procedure intentionally adopted, and written into our Constitution, to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust, who uses their office to engage in criminal conduct. After studying the charges for which Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED and then reading the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution part of which states: . . "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 ďindispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,Ē as the President might ďpervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,Ē or ďbetray his trust to foreign powers.Ē 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitutionís impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from ďthe misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.Ē 72 Such offenses were ďPOLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.Ē 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74" .
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 12:08 PM
    After being convicted by the Senate as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7: ĒJudgment 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" . . . and in a federal district court. .
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-15-2024, 11:18 AM
    . 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 Ė 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 fact is, 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 representativesÖ .
    22 replies | 760 view(s)
No More Results

1 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Hi I'm Chowder

    I saw your debate with Wild English nut-job Rose with the Fair Tax. Man you tore him apart!

    Anyway I want to say thanks for the info you posted on the Hannity Forums. I used to be a neo-con but I saw the light around December of last year.

    I also used to support the fair tax and really thought for a while it seemed like a good idea. But your statements have changed my mind.

    Thanks man.

    -Chowder.

    P.S Where is your sources for the info, I would like to read them more closely or did you rely mostly on the Constitution: the one document our Politicians ignore except for Ron Paul.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
About johnwk

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,685
Posts Per Day
0.46
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
05-28-2024 07:56 PM
Join Date
07-19-2008
Referrals
1

1 Friend

  1. Weston White Weston White is offline

    Member

    Weston White
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

08-12-2020


08-27-2019


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-14-2018


01-26-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 45 12311 ... LastLast

05-22-2024


05-21-2024


05-15-2024


05-12-2024


05-11-2024


05-01-2024


04-30-2024


04-29-2024


03-24-2024



Page 1 of 45 12311 ... LastLast