DocumentsIllustrative.com Forum Index DocumentsIllustrative.com
Discussions on the TRUE meaning of the U.S. Constitution
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The House can impeach a SCOTUS judge by simple majority

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    DocumentsIllustrative.com Forum Index -> Judiciary and “True Meaning”
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FREEDOM



Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:46 pm    Post subject: The House can impeach a SCOTUS judge by simple majority Reply with quote

The House can impeach a SCOTUS judge by simple majority

Although the House can impeach a SCOTUS judge by a simple majority and then can be removed upon conviction by the Senate on a two-thirds vote, few know the true extent of the power of impeachment, which is this, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States...” may be impeached for anything that might be called a misdemeanor. The journals of the Constitutional Convention make this crystal clear.

In convention, Tuesday, August 28, 1787,
    Art: XV being taken up, the words “high misdemeanor,” were struck out, and “other crime” inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases: it being doubtful whether “high misdemeanor” had not a technical meaning too limited.
This was later replaced with just the word “misdemeanor,” (with the word “high” before the word “misdemeanor” still being stuck out) thus retaining the same intended meaning so as to not be too limiting, to wit, in Convention, Saturday, September 8, 1787,
    Col. Mason withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst the State”

    On the question thus altered, N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa no. Del. no. Md ay. Va ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
And so it passed in the affirmative. Then, immediately after this vote, thus confirming the “true” intent and meaning of that which had just be altered, with nothing ever being suggested to the contrary, and so leaving utterly no room for doubt,
    Mr. Madison, objected to a trial of the President by the Senate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misdemeanor.
Unfortunately, those that merely say that they want to uphold the Constitution according to its intended “true” meaning using “true” construction for one case are incapable of being consistent in doing so for all cases — preferring “true” meaning and construction only when it is convenient and setting aside all of that which the original legislators intended when inconvenient or when, as such, it interferes with their personal beliefs, politics or the agenda of the faction to which they have an allegiance; thus, making them not the enforcers and upholders of “true” law, but the enforcers and upholders of men and faction — substituting the will of the original legislators with their personal will and that of politics and faction — judging and not expounding the Constitution — subverting and not supporting it — changing its meaning and operation, not through constitutional amendments, but through repugnant re-interpretations — lawlessly changing its meaning and operation to that which they think the Constitution should mean rather than that which was intended by the several State Legislatures and agreed to by the People by its lawful ratification by the People on behalf of their respective States.

The Constitution was never intended to be expounded or enforced “a la carte;” for, to do such a thing is nothing less than lawlessness; and, Hamilton, in fp78, on the Judiciary Department and on expounding, puts it this way,
    There is NO position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is VOID. NO legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers DO NOT AUTHORIZE, but what they FORBID.


(Protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    DocumentsIllustrative.com Forum Index -> Judiciary and “True Meaning” All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group