[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’ The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: House Judiciary Committee Majority Report on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Dec 2019) Source: House Judiciary Committee URL Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/438 ... sidential-Impeachment-Dec-2019 Published: Dec 7, 2019 Author: Judiciary Committee Staff Post Date: 2019-12-07 21:08:07 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 4068 Comments: 20 House Judiciary Committee Majority Report on Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment (Dec 2019) The Foreward by Mr. Nadler contains the following disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6. #6. To: All (#0) Majority Report at 41-42: The Constitution does not prescribe rules of evidence for impeachment proceedings in the House or Senate. Consistent with its sole powers to impeach and to determine the rules of its proceedings, the House is constitutionally authorized to consider any evidence that it believes may illuminate the issues before it. At this fact-finding stage, “no technical ‘rules of evidence' apply,” and “[e]vidence may come from investigations by committee staff, from grand jury matter made available to the committee, or from any other source.”228 The House may thus “subpoena documents, call witnesses, hold hearings, make legal de­terminations, and undertake any other activities necessary to fulfill [its] mandate.”229 When deciding whether to bring charges against the President, the House is not restricted by the Constitution in deciding which evidence to consider or how much weight to afford it. Indeed, were rules of evidence to apply anywhere, it would be in the Senate, where impeachments are tried. Yet the Senate does not treat the law of evidence as controlling at such trials.230 As one scholar explains, “rules of evidence were elaborated primarily to hold juries within narrow limits. They have no place in the impeachment process. Both the House and the Senate ought to hear and consider all evidence which seems relevant, without regard to technical rules. Senators are in any case continually exposed to ‘hearsay' evidence; they cannot be sequestered and kept away from newspapers, like a jury.”231 Instead of adopting abstract or inflexible rules, the House and Senate have long relied on their common sense and good judgment to assess evidence in impeachments. When evidence is relevant but there is reason to question its reliability, those considerations affect how much weight the evidence is given, not whether it can be considered at all. __________ 228 Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment, at 9. 229 Tribe & Matz, To End a Presidency, at 129. 230 Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process, at 42 (“[E]ven if the Senate could agree on such rules for impeachment trials, they would not be enforceable against or binding on individual senators, each of whom traditionally has had the discretion in an impeachment trial to follow any evidentiary standards he or she sees fit.”). 231 Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment, at 18. see also Gerhardt, The Federal Impeachment Process, at 117 (“Both state and federal courts require special rules of evidence to make trials more efficient and fair or to keep certain evidence away from a jury, whose members might not understand or appreciate its reliability, credibility, or potentially prejudicial effect.”). The citation to Black and Bobbitt at their page 18 should consider that said book did not necessarily recite the reality of the way things are or ever were, but the opinion of the author about the way things ought to be. Consider the way things ought to be at the very next page. Who believes Congress could possibly adopt this point, from page 19, without invoking outrage: I would on the other hand (though I am certain that others will disagree) most strenuously advocate that radio, television, and cameras have no more place in this solemn business than they have in any other trial, and for the same reasons. There is no point in inflicting humiliation greater than that inflicted by the mere fact of impeachment. Nothing solid is added to public information by making a continuing spectacle of a trial. Above all, television, radio, and photography act upon that which they purport to observe; what one sees and hears is not what would have occurred if these modern means of communication were not there. At least there is a great danger of this, a danger often realized in the past, and that is enough to justify exclusion. As for the Gearhart claim in footnote 231 that, "they would not be enforceable against or binding on individual senators, each of whom traditionally has had the discretion in an impeachment trial to follow any evidentiary standards he or she sees fit," no individual senator can decide whether evidence is admitted or excluded. The Chief Justice will decide, but his decision can be overriden by a majority vote of the senators. If Gearhart is attempting to say that the senators, acting as jurors, can engage in behavior akin to jury nullification, yeah, they can. As in the case of jury nullification, they can choose to ignore the law or the rules and enjoy immunity from penalty. That does not mean the law or rules do not apply, or that they would not violate their oath, it means only that they would be immune from penalty for having done so. It is a strange position for a constitutional lawyer to argue. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08   13:30:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 6.         There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com