On the Importance of Process and the Republican Nature of the New Government

In Federalist 38 Madison discusses the process by which the new proposed constitution was written and how that process was superior to anything that had been attempted before in history. If you recall, Plato believed that an enlightened philosopher king should rule, and that only this kind of man would be capable of creating, and leading, the city state. His reasoning was that man was too fraught with faults to avoid pursuing his own self-interest.

Madison lists the examples of Minos in Crete, Zaleucus of the Locrians, Theseus in Athens, Lycurgus of Spart, Romulus of Rome, and others to illustrate how these city states all were established, and their laws created, by a single person even as they went on to have legislative bodies. And all these states went through periods where single emperors ruled regardless of the original intent of their founding. Even democracy loving Athenians, “a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, …should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens”.[1]

Up until this point, this is how governments were formed. “(T)hese lessons teach us, … to admire the improvement made by America on the ancient mode of preparing and establishing regular plans of government”. The process by which the new constitution was written matters greatly. The representative way in which all states, and through their delegates the citizens thein, are represented is absolutely novel. It has never happened in the course of history to that time. This process alone helps ensure the liberty of the citizens of the new country.

Madison asks of those who object to the constitution, what they would propose as an alternative? //

In Federalist 39 Madison seeks to answer whether the new constitution creates a truly republican form of government and whether that government is federal or national in construction.

On the first question, Madison starts by declaring that only a representative republic, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution”. He points out that no such thing exists anywhere else in the world, and lists the various places that claim the title incorrectly. “It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it”. There is no nobility in the new country, in fact the constitution includes an, “absolute prohibition of titles of nobility”.

In each of the states’ constitutions, legislatures are chosen by the people for, “a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years.” Here again we see the criticality of turnover within these branches of government for ensuring liberty. //

But to those who worry about too much power being in the hands of the federal government, Madison reiterates the point that Hamilton made earlier that, “the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

https://afnn.us/author/johnparillo/

Of the major cases the US Supreme Court has heard this term, one that might not have gotten as much attention as it should have, is SEC versus Jarkesy. The court heard oral arguments at the end of November, 2023. The case goes to the question of whether or not administrative agencies have the ability to use administrative courts with administrative law judges rather than those that are under the Third Article of the constitution to enforce their regulations and rulings.

The case is broadly seen as getting to the heart of separation of powers. increasingly executive agencies have found ways to concentrate power within themselves and not having to deal with the other branches of government.

The appeal filed held the argument that using administrative judges violates the constitution. The filing stated that the executive using its own judges to rule effectively meant that there was no oversight of the executive agencies that were pressuring the charges.

It also noted that the 7th Amendment of the Constitution gives the defendant the right of a trial by jury. For any civil damages that are greater than $20 one can also seek a jury. Executive agencies using their own courts have consistently refused to allow juries to be used.

 JSobieski
3 hours ago edited
This is nothing new and it is nothing bad.

Scalia and Thomas, while they voted more similarly than any other two justices during their shared tenure, actually had a BIG philosophical difference in how they approached the job. Barrett is kind of taking of making the Scalia-esque point, but because people see things almost exclusively through a political lens, they miss the bigger picture and context for the disagreement.

Justice Thomas is someone who subscribes to the concept of "natural law". A snarky liberal might call this concept the right-wing version of substantive due process, although natural law has a pedigree older than the US. https://www.thepublicdiscou...

Justice Scalia in contrast was a strict textualist. This approach is often referred to as "legal positivism". Scalia is famous for ignoring things like legislative history for example. https://www.cmc.edu/salvato... .

These two men agreed on the outcome the vast majority of the time, but their approaches to that outcome were actually quite different. Thomas was called Scalia's lapdog by people who looked at things through a political lens, but philosophically, they were in some ways very very different.

Barrett is apparently Scalia's intellectual heir... at least in this particular dispute.

Tolly JSobieski
2 hours ago
'Justice Scalia in contrast was a strict textualist.'

Agreed. Where some go sideways, I believe, is that some believe "textualism" equates to "originalist". There are distinctions. Those distinctions are many times found whenever the text of an Act are at issue, in the first instance, and when the provisions of the Constitution are in question, in the second.

etba_ss JSobieski
2 hours ago
Well said.

And Thomas' philosophy is superior.

JSobieski etba_ss
2 hours ago
Maybe. It depends on how much your prioritize self government.

There is some validity to the argument that "natural law" is just the right-wing version of "substantive due process", i.e. a doctrine that is sufficiently malleable to reach whatever outcome is desired.

When I was in law school, I agreed with you. But now as a seasoned lawyer and a long time follower of politics, I think strict textualism is the best way to constrain the judiciary. Of course, constraining the judificiary may then in fact enable Congress to overreach---so it is a pick your poison kind of thing.

There is a lot to be said for legal positivism.

Scholar JSobieski
2 hours ago
The question is the preference whether constraining judiciary or the legislature. The Founders preferred the latter as they are the representatives of the people. If Common Law was not so outdated we didn't have to have this dillema.

Tolly JSobieski
2 hours ago
Don't you mean constraining the legislators? If legislation was enacted that respected what the judiciary has already achieved by substantive due process, what then is the need for any other argument than precedent?; or "pedigree rather than principle", as Justice Barrett argues?

JSobieski Tolly
an hour ago
I mean constraining the legislature---the collective action of legislators. I guess you could call taht constraining legislation, but it is more common to think of constraining people. Separation of powers is typically said to constrain the branches of government, not the outputs created by the three branches of government. Same with respect to the constraining impact of federalism (prior to the income tax and New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause).

Because there is a difference //

Ask the contemporary leftists who target virtually every protection we have against mob rule in the name of “democracy” — attacking the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, federalism, the filibuster, the Senate, and even the existence of states. They understand the difference, even if just intuitively.

Ask leftists who treat the “popular vote,” not as a wishcasting cope, but as means of legitimizing presidential elections. Those who want a few big states ruling the nation via a direct federal democracy are not interested in an American “republic.”

Blunting the federal government’s power over states and the state’s power over individuals is an indispensable way to ensure a diverse people in a huge nation can govern themselves and live freely. The “save democracy” types who refer to these long-standing federalist institutions as “minority rule” do not view “democracy” and a constitutional republic as interchangeable concepts.

Neither do smaller blue-state governors who sign a national vote compact that not only dilutes their state’s power but circumvents the Constitution. They love a direct democracy. A constitutional republic? Not so much. //

There is, “of course,” zero “legitimate debate discussion” to be had over whether we are a “direct democracy.” Not today, nor ever. “Democracy” isn’t even mentioned anywhere in any founding document, much less a direct one. None of the framers entertained any notions about majoritarianism or federal power that would even loosely comport the ones now embraced by the left.

People will often tell me that, sure, we might be a republic, but we also have “democratic institutions.” Of course we do. We also have numerous nondemocratic institutions. The Bill of Rights, for instance, is largely concerned with protecting individuals from state and the mob. The insistence that we only use “democracy” is meant to corrode the importance and acceptance of those countermajoritarian rules and traditions. //

These days, though, a bunch of illiberal progressives (and others) have taken universal notions that once fell under the umbrella of “democracy” and cynically distorted them to champion a hypermajoritarian outlook. It’s no accident the people who demand you call us a “democracy” also champion the idea that 50.1 percent of the country should be empowered to lord over the economic, religious, cultural, and political decisions of 49.9 percent.

It’s the point.

Anderson Cooper 360° @AC360
·
CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan explores why many MAGA Republicans are claiming that America is a republic, not a democracy.

9:34 PM · Jun 13, 2024 //

Applebaum even tried to claim there wasn't much difference between the terms "republic" and "democracy."

The Founders specifically rejected a pure democracy or direct democracy because they were concerned about mob rule. They wanted to protect individual liberties and minorities, they wanted a rule of law that would endure and protect those rights. Hence, while we can be called a representative democracy because the people elect their representatives -- it is more accurate and specific to say a Constitutional Republic. That difference is very significant because while in a pure democracy, mob rule could take away your rights, in a Constitutional Republic, you have checks from the courts who will uphold the rule of law and protect individual liberties.

Indeed, if we just had a pure democracy, politicians would only ever reach out to the most populous states and urban areas and completely ignore the smaller states in order to win elections because that's all they would need to do to hold control. But with things like the Electoral College, we ensure some greater balance. Those are just a couple of reasons why what we have is far superior to a pure democracy. //

Applebaum even tried to claim there wasn't much difference between the terms "republic" and "democracy." //

Here's what it says in the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Here's a good Prager University breakdown of the basic difference. https://youtu.be/wbsfpeMELGE //

The better question is, why do Democrats seem to want to deem America a democracy and downplay or ignore the "Constitutional Republic" that we are? Are they just ignorant, or do they not know the difference? Or is there some more problematic movement going on here? //

If Democrats succeed in getting rid of the Electoral College, they can completely skip Middle America and pitch to their base in New York and California. They can ignore those people Hillary termed "a basket deplorables," and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to term an "immoral majority." Then so much for the interests of the other, smaller states.

But if kids are not taught the nature of our government, they will not know that we have these protections like the Electoral College or what they are about. They will be more easily bamboozled and untethered and more easily seduced into apostasies like Communism instead of celebrating the rule of law, which is what makes our nation special.

If they just hear "democracy," they won't understand we are so much more than that. Democrats appear to want to make us much less. //

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. ... //

Yet, the Bureau’s involvement in concocting terrorist plots and other violent schemes only to arrest those involved has been an open secret over recent decades. This practice, which appears aimed more at justifying the agency’s existence and funding than protecting the public, raises serious ethical and legal questions – especially since such practice typically results in the violation of rights. //

Mongoose
5 hours ago
There's actually a really simple legislative fix for this, which Mr. Friend sort of mentions. And it might be popular, even in both parties. I could see both sides getting on board.
Entrapment is an affirmative defense - you have to admit you did the act, but you're saying there's a legitimate excuse; you were entrapped by the government. There are two kinds of entrapment defenses, subjective and objective. Subjective, which is the one federal law and court decisions recognize at the federal level and in most states, relies on the mindset of the defendant, particularly his "predisposition to commit the offense." ...
...
Objective entrapment is wholly focused on the government's conduct and answering a basic question: Did law enforcement use tactics that would induce a reasonable, law-abiding person to commit the crime? Not the defendant, a "reasonable, law-abiding person." The classic example is an undercover drug agent who goes up to a known heroin dealer and offers to buy a bag for $100. The dealer says no. The undercover says, "How about $100,000?" That's objective entrapment because even a reasonable, law-abiding person might go for a deal like that. His predisposition is irrelevant.
So, go to Congress and have them legislate the objective standard into federal law, and all this FBI entrapment (which it is) crap goes away. I worked undercover at the federal level and in a state that used the objective standard and believe me, you have to be a lot more careful about what you say and do under the objective standard. I didn't mind; I wanted to make a good, solid case, so I didn't cross the line. But it would definitely slow the FBI way down.

To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love this country. Government officials at the federal and state levels have censored President Trump, filed civil suits in order to sanction him, illegally removed him from the ballot, and perverted the law in order to prosecute him. This is a strategic attack against a former President of the United States, against a current candidate for President, and against the value we as a Nation place on our system of government, our legal system, and our very identity. The term lawfare, while apt, fails to adequately convey the moral depravity underpinning this strategic attack. I encourage this body to address each tactical front in the broader conflict provoked by lawfare. //

Bailey outlines numerous flaws inherent in the prosecution:

1. Failing to uphold the rules of professional conduct by which prosecutors are bound
2. Failing to specify the other crime Trump was alleged to have committed/intended to commit in falsifying the business records, such that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated
3. Seeking a gag order in violation of Trump's First Amendment rights
4. Perverting the law to meet the facts rather than objectively applying the law
5. Failing to require unanimity from the jury on the predicate offense(s) //

Ready2Squeeze
18 minutes ago

To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love this country.

This should read:

To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love hate this country.

anon-ice5
a day ago
Even the initial question by the reporter is misleading. She says what is Johnathan's reaction to the four hostages and them getting released. But, they weren't released they where rescued, released would imply that Hamas willingly gave them up to the IDF but they plainly didn't. Rescue though shows that the IDF took them away from Hamas captivity despite Hamas' resistance.

Something similar would be the police rescuing an abused child from their abusive parents vs the the abused child being released from the abusive parents to the police. //

Avatar
Cafeblue32 anon-ice5
a day ago edited
When I did an oh-so-brief semester stint in a Journalism 101 classd thinking I wanted to be one, we learned about these things called "weasel words" that are subtle bias inserted into the story to gently nudge you into agreeing with the author's viewpoint. But now everything is in stark contrast of right v left, the holy v the profane, the rich against the poor, with everyone v white people, especially the ones with dangly bits. There is no need for sublety anymore. The left controls all the institutions. Once you have control, you don't need persuasion. You just need force and compliance.

Our system was always an adversarial one of the people v their government. It is so serious they created an entire Constituion dedicated almost entirely to limiting and separating government power. The press is protected because they are the advocate of the powerless against the powerful.

But the press has chosen sides, and decided to side with the bureaucratic state dedicated to corporatist fascism rather than the people. It in fact attacks the very people it is supposed to be defending. Thus, it is no longer a mechanism of a free society, it is the oppressive tool of the bureaucratic state that exists to reap ever more power over citizens and to sustain itself. When you have the media actually condemning free speech and calling it dangerous and a threat, and openly lying about what we can plainly see is a lie, they have jumped the shark and forfeited their right to protection, and something is very wrong in within the entire institution. //

Prester John
a day ago edited
The reporter didn’t ask about Cornicus’ reaction to the rescue, she asked him for his reaction to the hostages’ “release”. A significant difference that shows a deliberate choice of words.

Coordinated attacks on SCOTUS’s integrity, led by Democrats and their allies in the corporate media, try to deceive Americans into believing partisans hijacked the highest court in the land and ideologically fractured it into near-dysfunction. The prominence of unanimous opinions and even more unanimous judgments not only discredits this notion but suggests a far more concerning narrative about the politicization of lower courts.

Since its inception, the Supreme Court has wielded its authority to deliver decisions rooted in bench agreement. In recent years, especially, justices “defied critics” with “historic unanimity” on cases that circuit, appeals, and state supreme courts decided in defiance of the Constitution. Of the 32 cases already decided in the 2023 term, 21 of the judgments were agreed upon by all of the presiding justices. Many of them signaled justices’ concern that lower courts abused their ruling power to violate the Constitution. //

The Supreme Court’s recent string of unanimous decisions not only serves as a reminder that corporate media are deliberately deceptive, but also suggests that lower courts are abusing their power to achieve partisan and, more importantly, unconstitutional results.

I wish I could say that these political prosecutions won’t increase. But they likely will. Authoritarians on the left are becoming even more brazen in their efforts to use the criminal justice system against political opponents.

The objective is clear: They seek to cow the public into abiding by their political views. With the threat of government force, they want to compel people to either embrace their political philosophy, or at least shut up about it. Dissent will increasingly become less tolerated if these officials are allowed to continue weaponizing the government.

First, any civil or criminal defendant in a federal case who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool can veto the Washington DC circuit and receive a hearing in his or her choice of another randomly chosen circuit or the circuit of his or her home dwelling.

Second, regardless of what circuit a federal case is filed in, any civil or criminal defendant who plausibly asserts that political or ideological factors may taint a jury pool shall be entitled to a jury pool that is proportionally selected from a region that did not vote more than 70 percent in favor of one party’s candidate in the most recent presidential, senatorial, or congressional election.

Third, plaintiffs or prosecutors in a federal case may elect to have the case decided in a randomly assigned circuit other than the District of Columbia. This would ensure that corrupt and criminal Democrats do not get a free pass on anything they do simply because they know a DC jury pool would never convict them of anything, no matter how egregious the offense.

Fourth, Congress should mandate that any states receiving federal funds for any legal or law enforcement purposes must abide by the same rules guaranteeing a defendant a politically fair jury pool.

Fifth, state legislators should enact similar laws ensuring political fairness for trials in their state.

In summary, all Americans are entitled to a jury of our peers, or at least a jury that is not politically biased. Unfortunately, conservative Americans are being increasingly subjected to politically weaponized lawfare. //

Indylawyer
10 hours ago
This is a badly needed reform. Excellent point. We also need to eliminate most federal criminal statutes, and make sure the ones that are left are clearly and narrowly defined. They wouldn't be able to wage most of this lawfare without these vague and overweening criminal statutes. //

anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
All this articles says to me is conservatives have been woefully neglectful in preparing to fight the opposition, and still are. We all knew that though.

GBenton anon-8gsr
12 hours ago
If Trump wins in November we have to view this as the last opportunity to right the ship. After what Biden has done, including the lawfare and threats to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster, the mission is to destroy the corruption and neutralize the threat should a Democrat win in 2028.

That said, I think if the American people knew the full truth about the left there might not be much of a Democrat party for a while. Trump should declassify anything and everything on the Dems and their corruption going back to JFK (and before, as relevant), since I believe they had JFK killed, they set up Nixon, and they have their fingerprints on a whole lotta bad stuff including Waco, etc, not to mention what Hillary and Obama did.

Expose all the dirt. make it public.

GBenton Arik
12 hours ago
Stealing elections needs to carry a price similar to treason since it interferes with the peaceful tranfer of power and threatens the stability and survival of the republic and invites tyranny. //

As Alito has famously said in the past, Congress did not create the Supreme Court, the Constitution did. It is not any Democrat hack's job to "fix" the court, and certainly, no one in Congress has the credibility to do absolutely anything regarding it.

"Fixing" it isn't the real purpose of the current left-wing hysteria, though. The real purpose is to garner more power.

Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it. Family, friends, and allies and foundationalists and honored adversaries, today we enter the next phase in the fight to protect our God-given rights from a government that wishes to take them from us and grant us mere privileges in return. To quote another patriot from another place and time, "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. This is perhaps, the end of the beginning."

And so, as we enter this new phase, there should be no question in the mind of any patriotic American as to why we fight. After all, only slaves lack the right to arm self-defense and we are no slaves, but free citizens of a great republic and we contain multitudes each of us from builder, a healer, a teacher, a statesman, a soldier, a judge, an attorney at law, a sergeant at arms, and an image of God. So, we know why we fight.

The question before us is how we must fight. What kind of discipline we must bring with us into battle and what spirit we must show to our friends and adversaries alike and by way of answering, we refer to our core doctrines.

The foundationalist's manifesto calls us to listen closely and to speak clearly. To deny the self at the same time to defend the individual. To respect tradition and also to cultivate the future. In short, as foundationalists, we are called to embrace disciplines that seem to contradict each other but nonetheless, to embrace them with all of our strength.

So, it is in our current fight because this system as dysfunctional as it often is, as unjust as it often is, it is nonetheless, our system. It is a feature not a bug of our American civilization. Like any other structure built from man's crooked timber, it is not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are not perfect. Judges and attorneys and trial courts and juries in the light of day are merely what we have instead of the blood feud and the vendetta and the dagger in the dead of night.

Knowing this, we give challenge even as we give thanks. Knowing this, we prepare ourselves for battle in a spirit of profound dissatisfaction and profound gratitude in equal measure.
...
When I was a boy my grandfather told me that fire is a great servant, but a terrible master and so it is with Government. And to the extent that our own Government attempts to be our master, we must oppose it. We must fight to the utmost limits of our strength, but in that fight, our spirit must be one of restoration, not destruction. We must confront the enemy as the firefighter confronts his enemy and for the same reasons that the structure itself may yet, be saved.

God bless and keep you all and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you, Your Honor.

Democrats pushing the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” failed to follow the required procedure for advancing a constitutional amendment. Equal Protection Project had opposed the attempt to embed CRT and DEI in the state constitution.

Central to the former Justice Antonin Scalia law clerk's arguments in January and Thursday is that when a man becomes president, he becomes a part of the constitutional machinery, no longer a regular citizen.

In this construct, the president is always the president, and the only way to laicize him is through a House impeachment and a Senate conviction for conduct that then becomes vulnerable to criminal prosecution. //

etba_ss Cappy Hamper
2 hours ago
It is actually worse. Roberts is the worst sort of justice, where in an attempt to preserve the "integrity" of the Court and avoid wading into political matters, his decisions are always guided by politics, not the law. In an effort to appear above politics, he is the most political creature on the Court.

Not political in the sense of advancing one party, but political in that every decision is filtered through the lens of how it will be viewed, the consequences, attacks, and preserving the Court's power. He sees himself as the hero of the SCOTUS, whose job it is to protect its power far more than to correctly interpret the Constitution and the law. This is why he upheld Obamacare under the "tax" provision, while ignoring that he had to disagree with his own opinion to take the case up. This is why he wanted to uphold the LA law in Dobbs, but not overturn Roe.

I think it would be preferable if they had pictures of him. Instead, he really just is this cowardly, feckless, weak and depraved. //

Random US Citizen etba_ss
2 hours ago
Roberts has turned the SC in to My Lai--he's destroying the court in order to "save" it. History isn't going to look kindly on that, either because constitutional order will fail and Roberts attacks on the rule of law will be seen as one cause of the collapse, or because constitutional order will prevail (an unlikely outcome) and he'll be seen as an obstacle that had to be overcome.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. //

anon-of-yo-biz
2 hours ago
Is it really being argued that Bin laden was a "political" enemy? Was Hitler a "political" enemy? Can we never object against tyranny, hatred, and murder unless we have compatible political or religious views? It seems that the word bigot has grow to include all forms of just resistance. //

Cafeblue32 anon-of-yo-biz
an hour ago edited
This is intentional. The left is destroying language by making specific terms no longer their definition, or getting rid of them altogether. The purpose of language is clear and precise comminication so as to not be misunderstood and creat a bunch of unneccesary problems.The left's purpose is to deconstruct language to be less clear, so specific sexes become they/thems, Catperson, or whatever the hell. They remove gender indicators in gender-specific languages. They use persons instead of men and women, family units instead of marriage and family, how is everyone instead of "How are you guys doing?" The more generic they can make the language, the more they can re-invent it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

And here we are-men are women, Israel is genocidal, Palestine is a legitimate state, Putin is ready to roll into New York, illegal able bodies men wearing expensive jeans and sneakers are refugees, illegal squatters are residents, the American flag is racist and the LGBTGFY flag is to fly high above them all everywhere an American flag is flown around ther world. Working class conservatives are racists and fascists while Palestininas calling for the end of Jews and demand for sharia law are freedom fighters. Etc etc.

Rush said it long ago: words mean things. That's why they work so hard to destroy them.

Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." //

The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."

Opening Statement

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) began the proceedings by seeking unanimous consent on several procedural matters.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram
·
Senate makes offer for 7 points of order and 60 minutes debate time on 1st article of impeachment. Then 1 pt of order and 60 minutes of debste on then Senate vote to dismiss the charges and then to adjourn the court of impeachment
1:56 PM · Apr 17, 2024 //

Objection

Senator Eric Schmitt @SenEricSchmitt
·
The American people deserve a full impeachment trial of Sec. Mayorkas.

I will not assist Senator Schumer in setting our Constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent.

2:35 PM · Apr 17, 2024 //

Procedural Wrangling

Cruz asked for a roll call vote on his motion. That vote failed 51-49 (along party lines).

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) then made a motion to adjourn immediately until noon on Tuesday, April 30. That also resulted in a roll call vote, which, again, failed 51-49 along party lines.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) then rose to reiterate the purpose of an impeachment trial and moved to table Schumer's point of order. Resulting in a third roll call vote with the same vote breakdown. //

The roll call vote on Lee's motion also went down 51-49. //

Scott's motion was defeated in a 51-49 roll call vote. //

Kennedy's second motion was shot down 51-49. //

Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) then moved to adjourn until November 6, 2024, to "allow the American people" to have a say in it. As one might expect, this motion, too, was defeated 51-49. //

Kennedy then moved to go into executive session before establishing a "breathtaking precedent." Again, the motion failed 51-49.

Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD) then rose and moved to table Schumer's point of order (as to Article II). The motion went down 51-49. //

Murray confirmed that they would indeed establish impeachment precedent.

Finally, a vote was held on Schumer's second point of order (to dismiss Article II). That vote, like all the others, was a party-line split, with 51 Democrats voting in favor of it, 49 Republicans. The result? Article II of the impeachment was ruled unconstitutional and dismissed. Schumer then moved to adjourn, which, of course, passed...51-49.

And the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas went down without a trial. //

Closing Argument

... the Republicans always knew this would never go anywhere due to the Senate majority, but rather than give the Democrats a chance to look like they played fair and gave the Republicans some say in it, they're just blowing it up upfront, so that they can point out that the Democrats are shredding the Constitution, or, as Schmitt put it, "setting our Constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent."

Further, I suspect the points made by Wicker and Kennedy regarding lying to Congress (a felony) not constituting a high crime and misdemeanor under the precedent the Democrats have now set by dismissing Article II of the impeachment without holding a trial will come back to bite the Democrats ... //

Daily Caller
@DailyCaller
·
Follow
McConnell speaking on impeachment trial of Mayorkas: 'Tabling articles of impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of the Senate. It's a simple as that.'

11:58 AM · Apr 17, 2024 //

Madame President, the Senate just swore an oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws of our country. We swore to discharge a duty that is quite different from our normal work. As a court of impeachment, we are called not to speak, not to debate, but to listen — both to the case against the accused and to his defense.

At this point in any trial in the country, the prosecution presents the evidence of the case, counsel for the defense does the same, and the jury remains silent as it listens. This is what our rules require of us as well. But the Senate has not had the opportunity to perform this duty. The Senate will not hear the House Managers present the details of their case against Secretary Mayorkas — that he willingly neglected the duties of his office and that he lied to Congress about the extent of that failure. Likewise, we will not hear the secretary's representatives present the vigorous defense to which he is entitled.
...
This process must not be abused; it must not be short-circuited. History will not judge this moment well. //

anon-adwq
5 hours ago
The Senate trial of Mayorkas would have established each Democrat running for reelection as a supporter of massive illegal immigration when he/she voted to acquit. Schumer upended 227 years of precedent and the Constitution of the United States to avoid that. However, each Democrat Senator's vote is on record as supporting massive illegal immigration by torpedoing the Mayorkas impeachment trial. The Republican Senate campaign ads still have the Democrat's vote on record. Job done. Nice try, Schumer. Nice work, Speaker Johnson.

Article II accuses him of knowingly making false statements.

This is a violation of 18 USC Section 1001, a felony offense. If this is not a high crime and misdemeanor, what is? If this is not impeachable, what is? What precedent will we be setting? We need to address this, we need to discuss it in closed session.

For that reason, Madam President, I move that the Senate proceed with closed session to allow for deliberation on this very consequential point of order that he's just made that violates hundreds of years of Anglo-American legal precedent and understanding, on the question required by impeachment rule 24.

when we won, when we had an injunction in place actually for the Biden administration to keep this very important protection in place, they ignored it. We had to go back in front of a judge time and time again to get them to abide by the law. But what we have found out from this administration — and Secretary Mayorkas specifically — is that he is willing, he himself is willing, to subvert the law, to believe that he is above the law, to lie and to commit a felony that this chamber now has said doesn't rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor — forever. That is the precedent forever. //

And as the back and forth in that United States v. Texas and Missouri case, from Justice Kavanaugh to the solicitor general of the United States indicated, what is the remedy here? And the Department of Justice's own lawyer said, 'Well, they have the remedy of impeachment.' But I guess we don't actually have that anymore. //

The Senate lost an opportunity to hear evidence to hold someone accountable today. //

anon-fe9p
an hour ago edited
This should give the answer to everyone demanding Biden's impeachment... If they wouldn't even hold the trial for Mayorkas there is no way they will hold one for Biden so voting to impeach him just became entirely irrelevant.

At this point they just need to keep the investigation going and keep feeding the information they gain about his corruption into the news cycle all the way through November so he can't get away from it. The political blow with voters is the only thing of any relevance that can come out of an impeachment inquiry now. //

kamief
an hour ago
Okay, here is how I see this.
The dems, must have known that if an impeachment trail where to happen, some things even worse was going to come out than what the impeachment was about? Correct me if that is a wrong assumption.
Otherwise, way play this out this way when they know that they are setting a rule that could come back to bit them in ass. How important is Mayorkas?

What am I missing? //

Sklish
an hour ago
There will be no more impeachments, ever. Chuck U has seen to that. Unless they try and impeach him for treason. If they ask for volunteers to carry out the sentence, there won't be enough ammo in stock to meet the demand.