Thread: S.C. during oral arguments ignored the proper venue, to try a President for crimes.

.
Yesterday, 4/25/2024, our Supreme Court, when hearing oral arguments concerning Trump and presidential immunity, they totally dropped the ball in ferreting out the constitutionally authorized venue to try a President for an alleged crime.


The truth is, our Constitution provides for the House to allege a crime, and the Senate is vested with the power to convene a trial to determine if that crime has actually occurred. If the Senate finds a crime has been committed, then the president can be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.


Generally speaking, in the case of a president committing a crime, the House and Senate act in a manner similar to that of a Grand Jury.


There is no other venue, other than Congress, mentioned in the Constitution to deal with a President who violates the law, and since the Constitution does provide that venue, it appears that is the proper venue to deal with a president who acts criminally while in office.


Why was the impeachment process added to our Constitution? One reliable source answering that question is Mason:


"Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings." See: Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense


The bottom line is, the issue, dealing with a criminal acting President, was included in our Constitution under the impeachment process, and our Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionally authorized venue for charging, and then determining, if a president has engaged in criminal activity.


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 really is a complex issue to resolve with any certainty but, Article Two of our Constitution sets out unique situations under which our President is empowered to act, and sometimes those situations entail required actions which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians. 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 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, appears to be the United States Senate, not our regular court system.

.
JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

.
QUESTION: where in our Constitution has our regular court system been delegated an authority to try a President for alleged criminal activity engaged in while in office? It seems to me that authority is placed in the hands of Congress (House and Senate) the House to accuse, and our Senate to try and convict a President for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” committed while holding his/her office of public trust.

So, under what authority is our regular court system now prosecuting a former president for alleged crimes committed while his was in office?

JWK

America's wage-earning citizens have been made into taxed slaves to pay for the economic needs of millions upon millions of foreign nationals who have invaded the United States’ border.

.
Let us take a look at what our Constitution states with reference to trying a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.


The fact 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”.

This is the first step, under our Constitution to deal with a President who is alleged to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”).

And under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”



And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And on February 13, 2021, Trump was acquitted of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE
.
Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, as provided by our Constitution, the Senate could have then disqualified Trump to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, and being convicted by the Senate, the door would also have then been opened to his being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.



So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, under which he had already been acquitted?

.
JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

.

What were considered impeachable offenses by our Founders, over which the United States Senate was delegated “sole power” to try and convict and accused party?

The historical evidence found HERE, (start at top of page eight) confirms the charges listed in the D.C. INDICTMENT OF TRUMP are those considered by our Founders as impeachable offenses, over which our United States Senate was delegated sole power to try and convict an accused party.

The D.C. District Court is the wrong venue for such a trial and violates our Constitution’s text and legislative intent.

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

Seems to me they got the wrong guy.

Joe Biden and family should be in court facing military tribunals in Gitmo.

Originally Posted by Beezer

Seems to me they got the wrong guy.

Joe Biden and family should be in court facing military tribunals in Gitmo.

Joe Biden and the current Democrat Party Leadership, are the very types of authoritarian Revolutionaries who took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist! And, the sad, and unforgivable thing is, they actually were able to con the majority of the people to help them get into power.

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

.
.
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."

So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

Provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

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."

Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Article II; Section 4:

“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.”

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

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?