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

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In The Establishments war on Donald Trump See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles Title: Impeachment Article I re Trump, Refusal to Provide Documents - FAIL Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Dec 16, 2019 Author: nolu chan Post Date: 2019-12-16 16:33:23 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 1132 Comments: 6 Impeachment Article I re Trump, Refusal to Provide Documents - FAIL From Article I: President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: (1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election. Firstly, there has been no finding that Ukraine government officials did not interfere in the 2016 United States Presidential election. It is not discredited through pronouncement by the discredited Democrat nutbags from the House Judiciary Committee. Moreover, Trump's refusal to produce documents and witnesses on demand of the Legislature is not an impeachable offense. The Executive has the right to contest the demands of the Legislature, and the Judicial Branch acts as referee to decide whether the Legislative demands interferes with a constitutional right granted to the Executive. A case in point occurred almost two centuries ago, involving impeachment articles drawn up and submitted in Congress against President John Tyler. I find no MSM articles about it, so I'll just do it my own self. Due to length, I will break the attempted impeachment of President John Tyler into several posts. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3. #1. To: All (#0) In 1842, the Legislature demanded that the President produce certain documents. President Tyler refused the demand stating, "it is not deemed consistent with the public interest to communicate the information requested." President Tyler also sent a letter of protest regarding the congressional actions. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Tyler, Section 2 (of 3) of Volume 4: John Tyler WASHINGTON, August 23, 1842. To the Senate of the United States: A resolution of the Senate of the 21st of June last requested the President to communicate to the Senate, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public interests, what measures, if any, had been taken to obtain the recognition by the Mexican Government of such claims of American citizens as were laid before the late joint commission, but were not finally acted on by it, and the satisfaction of such claims as were admitted by said commission; also whether any facts had come to his knowledge calculated to induce a belief that any such claims had been rejected in consequence of the evidence thereof having been withheld by the Mexican Government, its officers or agents, and any other information which he might deem it expedient to communicate relative to said claims; and another resolution of the 6th instant requested the President, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public service, to communicate to the Senate the measures taken to obtain the performance of the stipulations contained in the convention with Mexico in relation to the awards made by the commissioners and umpire under said convention. In the present state of the correspondence and of the relations between the two Governments on these important subjects it is not deemed consistent with the public interest to communicate the information requested. The business engages earnest attention, and will be made the subject of a full communication to Congress at the earliest practicable period. JOHN TYLER. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-16   16:33:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: All (#1) PROTEST.[79] [Footnote 79: The House of Representatives ordered that it be not entered on the Journal.] WASHINGTON, August 30, 1842. To the House of Representatives: By the Constitution of the United States it is provided that "every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall before it become a law be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large upon the Journal and proceed to reconsider it." In strict compliance with the positive obligation thus imposed upon me by the Constitution, not having been able to bring myself to approve a bill which originated in the House of Representatives entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes," I returned the same to the House with my objections to its becoming a law. These objections, which had entirely satisfied my own mind of the great impolicy, if not unconstitutionality, of the measure, were presented in the most respectful and even deferential terms. I would not have been so far forgetful of what was due from one department of the Government to another as to have intentionally employed in my official intercourse with the House any language that could be in the slightest degree offensive to those to whom it was addressed. If in assigning my objections to the bill I had so far forgotten what was due to the House of Representatives as to impugn its motives in passing the bill, I should owe, not only to that House, but to the country, the most profound apology. Such departure from propriety is, however, not complained of in any proceeding which the House has adopted. It has, on the contrary, been expressly made a subject of remark, and almost of complaint, that the language in which my dissent was couched was studiously guarded and cautious. Such being the character of the official communication in question, I confess I was wholly unprepared for the course which has been pursued in regard to it. In the exercise of its power to regulate its own proceedings the House for the first time, it is believed, in the history of the Government thought proper to refer the message to a select committee of its own body for the purpose, as my respect for the House would have compelled me to infer, of deliberately weighing the objections urged against the bill by the Executive with a view to its own judgment upon the question of the final adoption or rejection of the measure. Of the temper and feelings in relation to myself of some of the members selected for the performance of this duty I have nothing to say. That was a matter entirely within the discretion of the House of Representatives. But that committee, taking a different view of its duty from that which I should have supposed had led to its creation, instead of confining itself to the objections urged against the bill availed itself of the occasion formally to arraign the motives of the President for others of his acts since his induction into office. In the absence of all proof and, as I am bound to declare, against all law or precedent in parliamentary proceedings, and at the same time in a manner which it would be difficult to reconcile with the comity hitherto sacredly observed in the intercourse between independent and coordinate departments of the Government, it has assailed my whole official conduct without the shadow of a pretext for such assault, and, stopping short of impeachment, has charged me, nevertheless, with offenses declared to deserve impeachment. Had the extraordinary report which the committee thus made to the House been permitted to remain without the sanction of the latter, I should not have uttered a regret or complaint upon the subject. But unaccompanied as it is by any particle of testimony to support the charges it contains, without a deliberate examination, almost without any discussion, the House of Representatives has been pleased to adopt it as its own, and thereby to become my accuser before the country and before the world. The high character of such an accuser, the gravity of the charges which have been made, and the judgment pronounced against me by the adoption of the report upon a distinct and separate vote of the House leave me no alternative but to enter my solemn protest against this proceeding as unjust to myself as a man, as an invasion of my constitutional powers as Chief Magistrate of the American people, and as a violation in my person of rights secured to every citizen by the laws and the Constitution. That Constitution has intrusted to the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. Such impeachment is required to be tried before the most august tribunal known to our institutions. The Senate of the United States, composed of the representatives of the sovereignty of the States, is converted into a hall of justice, and in order to insure the strictest observance of the rules of evidence and of legal procedure the Chief Justice of the United States, the highest judicial functionary of the land, is required to preside over its deliberations. In the presence of such a judicatory the voice of faction is presumed to be silent, and the sentence of guilt or innocence is pronounced under the most solemn sanctions of religion, of honor, and of law. To such a tribunal does the Constitution authorize the House of Representatives to carry up its accusations against any chief of the executive department whom it may believe to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Before that tribunal the accused is confronted with his accusers, and may demand the privilege, which the justice of the common law secures to the humblest citizen, of a full, patient, and impartial inquiry into the facts, upon the testimony of witnesses rigidly cross-examined and deposing in the face of day. If such a proceeding had been adopted toward me, unjust as I should certainly have regarded it, I should, I trust, have met with a becoming constancy a trial as painful as it would have been undeserved. I would have manifested by a profound submission to the laws of my country my perfect faith in her justice, and, relying on the purity of my motives and the rectitude of my conduct, should have looked forward with confidence to a triumphant refutation in the presence of that country and by the solemn judgment of such a tribunal not only of whatever charges might have been formally preferred against me, but of all the calumnies of which I have hitherto been the unresisting victim. As it is, I have been accused without evidence and condemned without a hearing. As far as such proceedings can accomplish it, I am deprived of public confidence in the administration of the Government and denied even the boast of a good name—a name transmitted to me from a patriot father, prized as my proudest inheritance, and carefully preserved for those who are to come after me as the most precious of all earthly possessions. I am not only subjected to imputations affecting my character as an individual, but am charged with offenses against the country so grave and so heinous as to deserve public disgrace and disfranchisement. I am charged with violating pledges which I never gave, and, because I execute what I believe to be the law, with usurping powers not conferred by law, and, above all, with using the powers conferred upon the President by the Constitution from corrupt motives and for unwarrantable ends. And these charges are made without any particle of evidence to sustain them, and, as I solemnly affirm, without any foundation in truth. Why is a proceeding of this sort adopted at this time? Is the occasion for it found in the fact that having been elected to the second office under the Constitution by the free and voluntary suffrages of the people, I have succeeded to the first according to the express provisions of the fundamental law of the same people? It is true that the succession of the Vice-President to the Chief Magistracy has never occurred before and that all prudent and patriotic minds have looked on this new trial of the wisdom and stability of our institutions with a somewhat anxious concern. I have been made to feel too sensibly the difficulties of my unprecedented position not to know all that is intended to be conveyed in the reproach cast upon a President without a party. But I found myself placed in this most responsible station by no usurpation or contrivance of my own. I was called to it, under Providence, by the supreme law of the land and the deliberately declared will of the people. It is by these that I have been clothed with the high powers which they have seen fit to confide to their Chief Executive and been charged with the solemn responsibility under which those powers are to be exercised. It is to them that I hold myself answerable as a moral agent for a free and conscientious discharge of the duties which they have imposed upon me. It is not as an individual merely that I am now called upon to resist the encroachments of unconstitutional power. I represent the executive authority of the people of the United States, and it is in their name, whose mere agent and servant I am, and whose will declared in their fundamental law I dare not, even were I inclined, to disobey, that I protest against every attempt to break down the undoubted constitutional power of this department without a solemn amendment of that fundamental law. I am determined to uphold the Constitution in this as in other respects to the utmost of my ability and in defiance of all personal consequences. What may happen to an individual is of little importance, but the Constitution of the country, or any one of its great and clear principles and provisions, is too sacred to be surrendered under any circumstances whatever by those who are charged with its protection and defense. Least of all should he be held guiltless who, placed at the head of one of the great departments of the Government, should shrink from the exercise of its unquestionable authority on the most important occasions and should consent without a struggle to efface all the barriers so carefully erected by the people to control and circumscribe the powers confided to their various agents. It may be desirable, as the majority of the House of Representatives has declared it is, that no such checks upon the will of the Legislature should be suffered to continue. This is a matter for the people and States to decide, but until they shall have decided it I shall feel myself bound to execute, without fear or favor, the law as it has been written by our predecessors. I protest against this whole proceeding of the House of Representatives as ex parte and extrajudicial. I protest against it as subversive of the common right of all citizens to be condemned only upon a fair and impartial trial, according to law and evidence, before the country. I protest against it as destructive of all the comity of intercourse between the departments of this Government, and destined sooner or later to lead to conflicts fatal to the peace of the country and the integrity of the Constitution. I protest against it in the name of that Constitution which is not only my own shield of protection and defense, but that of every American citizen. I protest against it in the name of the people, by whose will I stand where I do, by whose authority I exercised the power which I am charged with having usurped, and to whom I am responsible for a firm and faithful discharge according to my own convictions of duty of the high stewardship confided to me by them. I protest against it in the name of all regulated liberty and all limited government as a proceeding tending to the utter destruction of the checks and balances of the Constitution and the accumulating in the hands of the House of Representatives, or a bare majority of Congress for the time being, an uncontrolled and despotic power. And I respectfully ask that this my protest may be entered upon the Journal of the House of Representatives as a solemn and formal declaration for all time to come against the injustice and unconstitutionality of such a proceeding. JOHN TYLER. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-16   16:34:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: All (#2) That John Tyler refused to produce documents on demand, and that he sent a protest letter are documented facts. The congressional response is also documented fact. Resoultions were almost immediately issued, and later Articles of Impeachment were introduced. Congressional discussion of the matter is documented in the Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 973-75, 30 August 1842. There, the record documents three resolutions that were adopted in the Senate, and one resolution failed. In 1834 the Senate had adopted certain resolu­tions, condemning the course of President Jackson in the removal of the deposites from the Bank of the United States io the State banks. In conse­quence of this movement on the part of the Senate President Jackson sent to that body a protest against the right of the Senate io express any opin­ion censuring his public conne; and, what made the case then stronger than the present case, was, that the Senate constituted the jury by whom he was to be tried, should any impeachment be brought against him. The Senate, after a long, elaborate discussion of the whole mat er, and the most elo­quent and overpowering torrent of debate that ever was listened to in this country, adopted the three following resolutions: “1. Resolved, That, while the Senate is, and ever will be, ready to receive from the President all such messages and com­munications as the Constitution and laws, and the usual course of business, authorize him to transmit to it; yet it cannot recognise any right in him to make a formal protest against votes and proceedings of the Senate, declaring such votes and pro­ceedings to be illegal and unconstitutional, and requesting the Senate to enter such protest on its journal.” On this resolution the yeas and nays were taken; and it was adopted, by a vote of 27 to 16: and, among the recorded votes in its favor, stood the names of John Tyler, now acting President of the United States, and Daniel Webster, now his Prime Minister. The second resolution was as follows: “2. Resolved, That the aforesaid protest is a breach of the privileges of the Senate, and that it be not entered on the jour­nal.” The same vote, numerically, was given in favor of this resolution; and among the yeas stood the names of John Tyler, now acting President of the United States, and of Daniel Webster, now his Prime Minister. The third resolution read as follows: “3. Resolved, That the President of the United States has no right to send a protest to the Senate against any of its proceedings.” And in sanction of this resolution also, the rec­ord showed the names of the same John Tyler and Daniel Webster. It was not often that he was driven to the neces­sity of adopting the sentiments of others; for he had been in the habit, throughout his life, of think­ing, and speaking, and acting for himself; but on this occasion, he begged the privilege of adopting a few extracts from a speech that, on the occasion to which he had referred, was made by a gentle­man whom, whatever opinions he (Mr. B.) might entertain of his views on other matters, he never hesi­tated to acknowledge as the soundest constitutional lawyer in the country—he meant Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister of John Tyler; and never could words fall from the lips of man more appropriate, and more accurate, than the words he was about io read. He read long extracts from Mr. Webster’s speech, delivered in the Senate of the United Slates on the protest of President Jackson; and then said those were the views of the intellectual giant to which he had referred. He forbore to add any opinion of his own. He was willing to adopt ihe sentiments he had read as his; and he submitted to the House, for its adoption, the following resolu­tions, the three first of which were in the precise form, and in ihe precise language of those adopted by John Tyler himself: Resolved, That whilst this House is, and ever will be, ready to receive from the President all such messages and communi­cations as the Conatitution and laws, and the usual course of public business, authorize him to transmit to it; yet it cannot re­cognise in him any right to make a formal protest against votes and proceedings of this House, declaring such votes and pro­ceedings to be illegal and unconstitutional, and requesting the House to enter such protest on its journal. Resolved, That the aforesaid protest is a breach of the priv­ileges of this House; and that it be not entered on the jour­nal. Resolved, That the President of the United States has no right to send a protest to this House against any of its proceedings. If this were the first time a protest had been sent by a President to Congress, he should content him­self with offering these resolutions; but since the present President had given them his opinion of such a protest, he would add the following: Resolved, That the Clerk of this House be directed to return the message and protest to its author. Inasmuch as he had only read resolutions which were adopted by John Tyler, and extracts from the speech of John Tyler’s Prime Minister, without saying anything for himself, except that he adopt­ed those sentiments, he now moved the previous question. Mr. PROFFIT rose to a question of order. He objected to the iniroduction of those resolutions without a vote of two-thirds, the majority that would be necessary to suspend the rules for the re­ception of resolutions—the suspension having only been made for the reception and disposition of the message, The SPEAKER was understood to ask she gentleman from Virginia to withdraw his resolu­tions. Mr. BOTTS said he would not do so until he had made a single remark. He was the last man in this House to make a speech, and then to move the previous question. But on this occasion he had merely read from the journal of the Senate on a similar proposition, and from the speech of the present Secretary of State. He moved the pre­vious question, because he did not desire to express his views at this time. He was too full of indigna­tion at this time to express his opinions. [Laughter] Mr. WISE rose, amidst much confusion, and challenged the gentleman from Virginia to with­draw the motion for the previous question. Mr. BOTTS replied that neither a challenge nor a threat would make a man honest. Tellers were appointed on the motion for the previous question, and they reported 66 in the af­firmative, and 48 in the negative—being less than a quorum. Mr. HOLMES moved an adjournment; which was negatived—yeas 47, nays 92. The vote was then taken on seconding the call for the previous question, and it was carried in the affirmative. Mr. PROFFIT moved to lay the resolutions on the table; which was negatived. The main question was then ordered. Mr. WARD called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolutions. Mr. UNDERWOOD called for a division of them, so that the second resolution should be voted on separately. Mr. SMITH of Virginia moved that they be all voted on separately. Mr. W. W. IRWIN moved an adjournment, on which he called for the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered, and the motion to adjourn was negatived. The first resolution being then in order, Mr. WM. W. IRWIN moved to lay it on the table. The SPEAKER deeided the motion to be out of order; and The resolution was then adopted—yeas 87, nays 46, as follows: [Recording of the Yeas and Nays omitted.] So the first resolution was adopted. On the second resolution, which is in the follow­ing words; Resolved, That the aforesaid protest is a breach of the priv­ileges of this House, and that it be not entered on the journal. The vote resulted as follows: [86 Yeas, 48 Nays, recording of the Yeas and Nays omitted.] So the second resolution was adopted. On the third resolution, which is in the following words: Resolved, That the President of the United States has no right to send a protest Co this House against any of its proceed­ings. The vote resulted as follows: [Yeas 86, Nays 53, recording of the Yeas and Nays omitted.] And so, in August 1842, there were Resolutions. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-16   16:37:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 3. #4. To: All (#3) In January 1843 came Articles of Impeachment. One hundred members of this House had declared, and placed it on record, that John Tyler had committed impeachable offences. Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess., 10 Jan 1843 Page 144 IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Mr. BOTTS rose and inquired of the Chair whether the proposition which he had given notice of his intention to submit on yesterday, could be now received and entertained as a privileged ques­tion. The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative. Mr. BOTTS then said that he came prepared to acquit himself of the pledge which he was under, to prefer charges against the acting President of the United States. Here Mr. EVERETT arose and inquired if he was to understand the Chair as deciding that the proceeding on the part of the gentleman from Vir­ginia was in order at that time. The SPEAKER replied that he had so decided. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Botts,] in bringing forward articles of impeachment, presented to the House a high constitutional question, and one which was privileged. Mr. EVERETT said, as he desired to take the sense of the House upon this point, he would appeal from the decision of the Chair. Mr. CUSHING asked for the yeas and nays on the appeal. Mr. WISE. State the quesion before the House. Mr. BOTTS inquired whether he was to under­stand the gentlemen [Messrs. Wise and Cushing] as objecting to the consideration of the motion he had made? Several voices: “No.” The bustle prevailing throughout the hall about this time having subsided, Mr. BOTTS resumed the remarks he had begun, he said that he proposed to introduce charges of corruption, of mal-conduct in office, of high crimes and misdemeanors, committed by the acting Presi­dent of the United States—charges which he stood prepared to prove, by testimony the most conclu­sive. He asked that the House might appoint a committee to investigate the charges, and to report what course it was proper to pursue. He was himself prepared to prove every charge which he should bring against the President. He not only asked, but he demanded an opportunity of making these charges good. Were he to come here as the humblest citizen of the Republic, and declare his readiness to prove them, he would claim the priv­ilege of doing so as such, much more so, then, did he claim, and insist upon it, as the Representative of fifty thousand people. It was his highest con­stitutional privilege. One hundred members of this House had declared, and placed it on record, that John Tyler had committed impeachable offences. He (Mr. B.) had to declared; and he considered it due to his own personal honor and reputation that he should be permitted to prove the truth of what he asserted. He was not one of those who dealt in vague and general churls, but would not come up and put their assertions in a tangible form. He made no charges which he was not prepared to sustain with the most conclusive proof. Since his first agitation of this subject at the last session, he had been deeply reflecting and deliberating upon it; and the more he reflected, the more imperative appear­ed his duty to make these charges. In doing so, he must declare that, so far from being actuated by a desire to render himself conspicuous before the country, and place himself ahead of those on that floor whose lead he generally followed, and whom he would be proud to follow on this as on other subjects, he must be permitted to declare that this was the most painful duty he had ever undertaken to perform. He declared that he was actuated alone by the obligations which rested upon him. He knew not how long he should be a member of the House of Representatives. If the ability of the legislature of his State was equal to their good will towards him, he should not sit here long; [laughter;] but he could not retire to private life, unless he had first discharged this sacred duty. Should he live to see the overgrown power of the Executive hereafter trampling under foot all opposi­tion—the independence of the Legislature sacri­ficed—the energies of the people relaxed into listlessness at Executive encroachment and obedience to his will;—should he witness such a state of things in this country, he would have the satisfac­tion, with a proud heart and erect bearing, that he, for one, at least, had endeavored to arrest it. Here Mr. EVERETT rose to a question of or­der. He said he had taken an appeal from the decision of the Chair, by which the gentleman [Mr. Botts] was allowed to proceed. Mr. BOTTS asked if the gentleman was not too late with his objection? The SPEAKER said no. The gentleman had a right to insist on his appeal. Mr. BOTTS said he was recognised by the Chair, and inquired whether his resolution could not be entertained as a privileged question. The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative. Mr. BOTTS was proceeding with his remarks before the gentleman [Mr. Everett] made his objection, and he submitted whether the gentle­man was not too late in taking an appeal. Mr. EVERETT insisted upon his position. He was anxious to have the bill to repeal the bank­rupt law taken up and disposed of. Mr. BOTTS said that if the gentleman appre­hended that his resolution, would consume too much of the time of the House, he was prepared to submit it in such a form as would render it not liable to the least objection. The whole subject might then be disposed of in fifteen minutes. Mir. EVERETT observed that he did not, at first, know the object the gentleman had in view; and, therefore, listened awhile to his remarks, till he learned what it was. He then immediately rose, and appealed from the decision of the Chair. It was with great reluctance that he interrupted the gentleman, but he fell desirous that the business of the House should not be delayed by any collateral matter. There were two subjects now before the House, on which debate was going on; and he was for bringing both those subjects to a close as soon as possible. The Speaker had decided that this was a privileged question, and from that decision he appealed. If the House decided against the appeal, then the gentleman from Virginia could go on with his remarks. The SPEAKER had no doubt that, if the gen­tleman from Vermont insisted on his point of order and the appeal, he must put the question on it. The SPEAKER then stated the question; and, at the request of Mr. GILMER, repeated his deci­sion, and the point of order and appeal of the gen­tleman from Vermont. Mr. WISE asked if any motion was made in writing. If so, he should like to have it read, in order that he might judge for himself when he came to vote. Mr. BOTTS said that he would read it himself. Mr. WISE wished the Clerk to read it. Mr. BOTTS replied that he would rather read it himself, as he understood his own writing better than anybody else did. Mr. B. then began reading, and had read but a few passages, when Mr. COOPER of Georgia expressed a wish that the gentleman would read from the Clerk’s table. We can’t (said he) hear a word in this part of the House. Mr. BOTTS. I will take a position where the gentleman can here (sic) me, [going to a seat further back in the circle.] Mr. B. then read the follow­ing charge: “I do impeach John Tyler, Vice President, acting as President of the United Stales, of the following high crimes and misdemeanors: “1. I charge him with gross usurpation of power and violation of law, in attempting to exercise a controlling influence over the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, by ordering the pay­ment of amounts of long standing, that had been by them rejected for want of legal authority to pay, and threatening them with expulsion from office unless his orders were obeyed; by virtue of which threat, thousands were drawn from the public treasury without the authority of law. “2. I charge him with a wicked and corrupt abuse of the power of appointment to, and removal from, office; first, in displacing those who were competent and faithful in the discharge of their public duties, only because they were supposed to entertain a political preference for another; and, secondly, in bestowing them on creatures of his own will, alike regardless of the public welfare and his duty to the country. “3. I charge him with the high crime and misde­meanor of aiding to excite a disorganizing and revolutionary spirit in the country, by placing on the records of the State Department his objections to a law, as carrying no constitutional obligation with it; whereby the several States of this Union were invited to disregard and disobey a law of Congress, which he himself had sanctioned and sworn to see faithfully executed, from which nothing but disorder, confusion, and anarchy can follow. “4, I charge him with being guilty of a high misdemeanor, in retaining men in office for months after they have been rejected by the Senate as unworthy, incompetent, and unfaithful, with an utter defiance of the public will, and total indiffer­ence to the public interests. “5. I charge him with the high crime and misde­meanor of withholding his assent to laws undispensable to the just operations of government, which involved no constitutional difficulty on his part; of depriving the Government of all legal sources of revenue; and of assuming to himself the whole power of taxation, and of collecting duties of the people without the authority or sanction of law. “6. I charge him with an arbitrary, despotic, and corrupt abuse of the veto power, to gratify his personal and political resentments against the Sen­ate of the United States, for a constitutional exer­cise of their prerogative, in the rejection of his nominees to office, with such evident marks of inconsistency and duplicity as leave no room to doubt his disregard of the interests of the people, and his duty to his country. “7. I charge him with gross official misconduct, in having been guilty of a shameless duplicity, equivocation, and falsehood, with his late Cabinet and Congress, which led to idle legislation, and useless public expense; and by which he has brought such dishonor on himself as to disqualify him from administering the Government with ad­vantage, honor, or virtue, and for which alone he would deserve to be removed from office. “8. I charge him with an illegal and unconsti­tutional exercise of power, in instituting a commis­sion to investigate the past transactions under a former administration of the custom house in New York, under the pretence of seeing the laws faith­fully executed—with having arrested the investiga­tion at a moment when the inquiry was to be made as to the manner in which those laws were execu­ted under his own administration—with having di­rected or sanctioned the appropriation of large sums of the public revenue to the compensation of officers of his own creation, without the authority of law; which, if sanctioned, would place the en­tire revenues of the country at his disposal. “9. I charge him with the high misdemeanor of having withheld from the Representatives of the people information called for, and declared to be necessary to the investigation of stupendous frauds and abuses alleged to have been committed by agents of the Government, both upon individuals and the Government itself, whereby he himself be­comes accessary to these frauds.” Mr. BOTTS then said that he wished to connect no man or set of men with his fame on this resolu­tion. He wished no man to commit himself on it till he had an opportunity of proving the truth of his charges. Mr. WISE interrupted his colleague, and asked for the reading of the proposition founded on the charges. He did not wish to hear the gentleman’s speech till he was in possession of the whole subject. Mr. BOTTS submitted that the matter was not within the control of his colleague. The SPEAKER requested the gentleman to submit his motion to the House; when - - - - - - - - - - Page 145 Mr. BOTTS read the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee of nine members be appointed, with instructions diligently to inquire into the truth of the preceding charges preferred against John Tyler, and to report to this House the testimony taken to establish said charges, to­gether with their opinion whether the said John Tyler hath so acted in his official capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House; and that the committee have power to send for persons and papers. [After legal wrangling, the vote on the main question was taken up.] So the main question was ordered. Mr. UNDERWOOD moved a reconsideration, of the vote by which the House had ordered the main question to be put, and also of the vote by which the previous question was seconded. He was about to debate the motion; but was called to order. The SPEAKER decided that one motion only could be entertained at a time. The motion to reconsider the vote by which the main question was ordered to be put, would first be in order. Mr. UNDERWOOD accordingly made that mo­tion, and asked for the yeas and nays thereon. The House refused to order the yeas and nays. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked for tellers. The House refused to order tellers. The question was then taken on the motion to reconsider, and the House refused to agree to it. The question then recurring upon the adoption of the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Botts] i.e. of impeachment—Mr. GRANGER rose and said that one of the proposed charges against the President of the United Slates was, that he removed certain inno- - - - - - - - - - - Page 146 cent men from office. [Laughter] Now, there was a time when he (Mr. G.) acted as accessory to the President, in the execution of a number of political innocents, [laughter,] and he should there­fore ask to be excused from voting upon the ac­ceptance of the charges preferred. Mr. HOPKINS asked for the yeas and nays on the motion, and they were ordered. The House agreed to excuse the gentleman— yeas 111, nays 91. When Mr. Houston’s name was called, he rose and inquired if it was too late to ask the gentleman [Mr. Granger] a question. He wished to know whether the gentleman from New York considered the charge of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Botts,] as implicating him­self, and rendering him liable to the charge of cor­ruption in office? The SPEAKER said it was too late to ask and answer a question after the call of the roll had been commenced. The question then recurred on the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Botts,] and re­sulted as follows ayes 83, nays 127. [Recording of the Yeas and Nays omitted.] So the House refused to adopt the resolution. nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-16 16:38:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 3. 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