Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 76 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 208 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:
    17 replies | 651 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-21-2024, 10:54 AM
    I see you have yet to respond to THIS POST .
    17 replies | 651 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)
    17 replies | 651 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.
    17 replies | 651 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.
    17 replies | 651 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: ”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."
    17 replies | 651 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 “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" .
    17 replies | 651 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: ”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" . . . and in a federal district court. .
    17 replies | 651 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 – 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 representatives… .
    17 replies | 651 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-12-2024, 03:18 PM
    I certainly have not advanced " . . . the entirely goofy-assed notion that Trump is too damned famous or too damned official or too damned good for a court of law." What I have laid out, and provided sufficient supportive documentation for, is our founder's intended due process procedure for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust and engages in criminal acts. I'm getting the impression you do not approve of our Founder's remedy which is an important part of our Constitution. JWK
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-12-2024, 02:36 PM
    It most certainly does. The charges listed in the D.C. indictment of Trump are allegations of crimes committed by Trump, while Trump was President and are directly related to his Presidency. Why do you reject an irrefutable fact? .
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-12-2024, 10:57 AM
    . Does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency? If the answer is yes, then the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction, and the court of competent jurisdiction is the United States Senate. In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant who engages in criminal conduct while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (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?
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-12-2024, 08:56 AM
    In that (impeachment is not a substitute for the criminal justice system) you are correct, and why our founders provided those convicted by the Senate "...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." ”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.”(my emphasis) Article I; Section 3, Clause 7. .
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-12-2024, 08:22 AM
    Well, if it does, and those charges were committed by Trump while he was in office, our founders provided a specific due process procedure in our Constitution to deal with public servants who violate their office of public trust SOURCE, and that would include a President, who is accused of engaging in acts consider to be criminal and violate his office of public trust. In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant who engages in criminal conduct while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (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."
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-11-2024, 03:40 PM
    I have no idea what you mean by that. So, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency?
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-11-2024, 01:38 PM
    . The D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP appears to me to list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency. What say you? .
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-11-2024, 01:26 PM
    I appreciate you posting that, but your generalizations leave me wondering what you mean.
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-11-2024, 12:21 PM
    . . What many seem to avoid in a discussion concerning prosecuting a President for conduct considered to be criminal, is the distinction between acts which are public in nature and connected to a President’s office of public trust, and private acts and conduct, which are not connected to the presidency ___ the former intended to be dealt with under our Constitution’s impeachment due process, while the latter are to be dealt with under our ordinary judicial system and its allotted due process. In the instant case concerning the type of charges found in the impeachment of Trump H. Res. 24, and charges found in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP, both list charges directly connected to Trump’s acts associated with his public trust and fall under our Constitution’s impeachment’s due process, while the alleged charges found in NEW YORK’S INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are private acts and subject to a court of competent jurisdiction and its due process procedure. So, the question is, does the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP list an array of charges directly connected to Trump’s presidency? And if the answer is yes, then the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction, and the only court of competent jurisdiction is the United States Senate.
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-10-2024, 06:27 AM
    . BTW, Peter J. Wallison, Emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, who authored “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II), is the same nitwit and constitutionally illiterate who asserts that Trump is ineligible to run for president. See: The Colorado Court Decision on Trump Was Correct JWK
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-09-2024, 06:32 PM
    . . See: “Private Acts” Open the Way for a Trial on Trump’s Election Interference (Part II) With regard to TRUMP V. UNITED STATES, Mr. Wallison goes through a long-winded recount of the oral arguments before the S.C, which was limited to the following question: "WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE Mr. Wallison finally concludes,
    20 replies | 629 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-07-2024, 09:28 PM
    . . With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States. On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-07-2024, 03:11 PM
    . What has become increasingly apparent in the case being discussed (USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024), is, the very fabric of our Presidency is under attack and being made susceptible to the whims and passions of political partisan opponents by ignoring the unique due process procedure thoughtfully placed in our Constitution to deal with a President who might violate his public trust and engage in acts thought to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” As confirmed by historical evidence during the making of our constitution, and with respect to a President who might violate their public trust and cause injuries to society itself, our founders rightfully concluded the first step to be taken was for the people, through their Representatives, to accuse and charge that President of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The next step in the unique due process procedure adopted to address charges lodged against the President by the people is to conduct a trial to determine guilt or innocence. And our wise founding fathers as a preponderance of the evidence confirms (e.g., see Federalist No 65) the United States Senate, and not our ordinary judicial system, is the proper venue to conduct such a trial. Hamilton convincingly argued that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-05-2024, 08:23 PM
    . In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (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."
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-05-2024, 01:35 PM
    Determining what our Constitution means requires and adherence to not only its text, but the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to, which gives context to its text. In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court emphatically notes a fundamental principle concerning the meaning of our Constitution. ”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 : "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-01-2024, 03:49 PM
    Exactly. Our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations involve actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The unique circumstances under which a president must sometimes act, requires a unique and highly informed venue to determine quilt or innocence of our president if charged with a crime, committed while in office. And that venue, by the terms of our Constitution, is currently the United States Senate.
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    05-01-2024, 03:41 PM
    Do you understand the word presidency, as distinguished from the president?
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-30-2024, 09:03 PM
    Let us examine exactly what has taken place with the case against Trump in D.C. . What appears to have taken place is an intentional perversion of our constitution and the rule of law. Those trying to undermine our Presidency have looked at specific charges the House impeached Trump under and the Senate acquitted him of, parsed those specific charges into an INDICTMENT and assigned any federal statutory criminal law that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of them under the unique process specifically adopted to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That seems to sum up what has taken place and confirms our rule of law has been undermined, and some very evil actors in our judicial system, are part of this intentional undermining.
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-30-2024, 12:27 PM
    What I realize is, you are not making any sense with your provocative innuendo. Instead of playing cat and mouse, simply state exactly what your mean in clear language so I can respond accordingly. Aside from that, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the wrong venue to try Trump for the charges found in the indictment. The truth is, the House did Act on January 25, 2021, and filed H. RES. 24 with the Senate, charging Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
    110 replies | 8425 view(s)
More Activity

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
Yesterday 06:34 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