• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About me
  • Contact

Joel Solkoff

High-tech housing for the poor, disabled and elderly

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHebrewItalianPolishPortugueseRussianSpanish
  • Disability and Elderly Issues
  • Food
  • Architects for Change
  • Joel Solkoff’s Resume
  • Joel’s Books
You are here: Home / Before Donald Trump can be convicted of treason / Some call it treason; I call it treason

Some call it treason; I call it treason

July 19, 2018 by joel Leave a Comment

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/15/16340

 

 

 

 

Treason Law and Legal Definition

A person commits the crime of treason if he levies war against his state or country or sides to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is a crime under federal and some state laws. Treason is made a high crime, punishable by death, under federal law by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

++++

Under this article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.

 

++++

The majority of states outlaw treason in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-htrump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html

++++

Article Three Section  3 (treason section) of the United States Constitution

Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#

++++

Attainder of Treason

In English criminal law, attainder or attinctura was the metaphorical “stain” or “corruption of blood” which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime (felony or treason). It entailed losing not only one’s life, property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one’s heirs. Both men and women condemned of capital crimes could be attainted.

Attainder by confession resulted from a guilty plea at the bar before judges or before the coroner in sanctuary. Attainder by verdict resulted from conviction by jury. Attainder by process resulted from a legislative act outlawing a fugitive. The last form is obsolete in England (and prohibited in the United States), and the other forms have been abolished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder

 

++++

++++

CNN July 16: Following President Trump’s joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, former CIA Director John Brennan tweeted that Trump’s comments were “nothing short of treasonous.” CNN panelists discuss.

++++

++++

‘Nothing short of treason’: US voters on the Trump-Putin summit

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nothing-short-of-treason-us-voters-on-the-trump-putin-summit/ar-AAAfYsc

++++

PLYMOUTH, Minn. – If President Trump needs tips for dealing with Vladimir Putin, there’s a real estate agent in Plymouth who may have some insight.

Mark Stipakov knows the Russian president from his earliest days, as an elementary school kid at School 193 in Leningrad. They spent five years together as classmates in the Soviet Union, before Stipakov switched schools at the end of sixth grade.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/trumpputin-relationship-is-watched-across-the-world/89-574970508

++++

“Dastardly”

++++

David Hickton, former U.S. attorney who pioneered the tactic of indicting state actors for hacking, talks with Rachel Maddow about the value of indicting nation-state adversaries even if the chances for extradition are low. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc

++++

++++

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“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.”

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

“What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office…” Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3)provides that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

 

In the past, England had used impeachment of the King’s ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).

Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word “misdemeanor” which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be “malpractice or neglect of duty.” This was removed and replaced with “treason, bribery, or corruption.” The word “corruption” was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term “maladministration.” This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

Relating to the President’s Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply “maladministration.” This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase “high crimes or misdemeanors” which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

+++++

A Saturdsy Night Massacre review

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Impeachment Trials

The trial in the Senate is handled by “Managers” from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”

For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one — “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer — the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority “on all fours” for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.

The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the “political question” doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon’s case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon’s removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

This article was written by Ronald Arthur Lowry.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

++++

What’s Past is prologue

I.A.House Judiciary Committee vote to impeach President Richard Nixon

IE Background

++++

IE. Hearings begin

++++

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Before Donald Trump can be convicted of treason, the House of Representatives must impeach, the Senate must convict, Treason is a capital offense, Trump = Benedict Arnold, חי Tagged With: A Saturday Night Massacre review, Article Three Section  3 (treason section) of the United States Constitution, Attainder of Treason, FindLaw, former CIA Director John Brennan, House Judiciary Committee vote to impeach President Nixon, John Brown in Virginia, Legal definition of treason, Madline Albright, President Donald J. Trump, Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure, Ronald Arthur Lowry, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Current

Disability bathroom design

September 3, 2020 By joel

Covid 19 has accelerated the need for a new utilitarian architecture: Architecture for the vulnerable ( like me)

August 19, 2020 By joel

Covid-19 Architects: “We Who Are About to Die Salute You”

August 6, 2020 By joel

Covid 19 impasse: Why architects need to know how a member of the US Congress must be expelled by the end of the month and how that relates to building emergency housing at a time when its absence is deadly and dangerous

July 23, 2020 By joel

John Wayne don't run away

Rain: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

July 5, 2020 By joel

Theo van Gogh’s The Interview

June 27, 2020 By joel

Recent

  • Ani Ma’Amin: This is what I believe
  • March March from The Chicks: My Personal Anthem
  • 建筑师注意:美国新冠状病毒死亡人数将会激增;你们必须为穷人建造住房
  • I am now a card carrying member of the National Organization for Women
  • God is not on President Trump’s Side; God is on my side
  • The late great James Baldwin on racism in America
  • COVID-19 Updated Information
  • Sensuous Françoise Hardy, Sixties icon, is now 76 years old
  • Mandarin Chinese numbers 1 to 10
  • FOOD: When leading means following the crowd
  • US Representative in Congress Val Demings, Democrat, Florida must be our next Vice President. Must be.
  • Alizée
  • Zimbabwe Last Month: People are dying
  • Make sure the Calgery Stampede is up and running on July first, 2020
  • My Hebrew teacher Mama was born in Louisville Kentucky with the name on her birth certificate:”Muriel Magdalena Pellicia”
  • Cher extremely alive
  • French rock goddess is a protégée of Isadora Duncan
  • Attention Architects: US COVID-19 Deaths Will Skyrocket; You Must Build Housing for the Poor
  • Passover Message to my Fellow Congregants Ohev Sholom, Williamsport PA
  • Perhaps the World Ends Here by The Poet Laureate of the United States
  • My drop dead enthusiastic review of The Meritocracy Trap

Links

Blogroll
  • 1. PHOENIX REHAB1. PHOENIX REHAB With the help of the gifted Alicia Spence, I begin to walk.

  • 2. SMART SPACES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING2. SMART SPACES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING "The demographics of baby boomer aging over the next decade foreshadow great economic, political and cultural changes that could overwhelm many developed countries," said Richard Behr, founding director of the Center.

  • 3. IMMERSIVE CONSTRUCTION (ICon) LAB3. IMMERSIVE CONSTRUCTION (ICon) LAB My home in virtual reality, the ICon lab shows 3D and 4D (the fourth dimension is Time) models on 3 eight-foot hight screens; when the lights go off, put on the 3-D glasses.

  • 4. AMIGO MOBILITY4. AMIGO MOBILITY CEO Al Thieme created the first Power Operated Vehicle (POV) scooter. Most manufacturers separate their battery chargers from the scooter. You can plug an Amigo right into an electric socket .

  • 5. T & B MEDICAL5. T & B MEDICAL "Travis and Barb Barr, the 'T' and 'B' behind T & B Medical, Inc. have one goal in mind...to attend to every client's individual" mobility and durable equipment needs. I am a continual customer and recommend T&B highly--HIGHLY.

  • 6. INVACARE6. INVACARE Invacare is the world's leading manufacturer of wheelchairs, bariatric equipment, disability scooters, respiratory products and other homecare products.

  • ACCESSIBILITY FROM APPLEACCESSIBILITY FROM APPLE For the disability community, computer technology creates the ability to engage in computer design of aging-in-place housing.

  • CAREGIVER VILLAGECAREGIVER VILLAGE Using a virtual reality world, Caregiver Village improve the lives of family caregivers. Second Life, eat your heart out.

  • EMAIL MEEMAIL ME I once had a boss who loved focus groups. One afternoon at a shopping mall, readers of my newsletter told me EXACTLY what they thought, not knowing I was behind the one-way mirror. Please do the same.

  • HME NEWSHME NEWS HME News is the monthly business newspaper for 17,000 home medical equipment providers.

  • McKEESPORTMcKEESPORT "The decrease in the population since the 1940s is attributable to the general economic malaise that descended upon the region when the steelmaking industry moved elsewhere. The major employer WAS the National Tube Works, a manufacturer of steel pipes.

  • MONONGAHELA RIVERMONONGAHELA RIVER George Washington crossed the Monongahela into McKeesport to bring rum to the his friend, Queen Alliquippa, a Seneca Indian ruler. This was during the French and Indian Wars, Remember them?

  • NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

  • PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES (PARF)PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES (PARF) PARF represents the Commonwealth's premier facilities serving individuals with physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. Traditionally, the highlight of the disability community is the annual conference at the Nittany Lion Inn at the Penn State campus

  • YOUGHIOGHENY RIVERYOUGHIOGHENY RIVER McKeesport is where the Youghiogheny and Monongahela Rivers meet. Fresh fish like the Walleye are back at the Youghiogheny, now that factories that created jobs are no longer polluting the river.

Previous Posts

Tags

Addison Court Amelia Altalena Solkoff Amelia Solkoff Amigo Mobility Architectural Engineering assistive technology blind Blueroof Technologies cancer Central Pennsylvania Centre County design featured-grid Helen Keller HME News Isadore Solkoff Joanna Joanna Solkoff Joel Solkoff John Bertoty John Messner kidney cancer McKeesport Medicaid Medicare Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Miriam Pell Schmerler Miss Sullivan New York City North Carolina PA Penn State Pennsylvania power chairs President Obama Robert Walters Sarah Schmerler scooter Sonali Kumar Spain State College United States University Park Virtual reality Wikipedia

Footer

Recent

  • 1971 birthday letter to my father
  • If by Rudyard Kipling
  • Grandfather (that’s me) relocating to NYC to save my life at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
  • Why I relate ending hunger in US America to writing about my cancer survival for The New York Times
  • My love hate relationship with The New York Times 2018
  • Radio hate monger of the 1930s Father Coughlin returns to Fox News
  • A fine romance with no kisses
  • The US Needs a New Capitol City: Covid Agenda Item
  • The US Election & Housing for the Vulnerable
  • We who are about to die…or architecture

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 50 other subscribers

Cart

Copyright © 2021 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.