[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The grandest jury nullification? - Irrelevant

At 1:13 PM -0800 12/14/98, Ian Briggs wrote:
>>Has it occurred to anyone that if Congress really does end up voting for a
>>censure instead of a full impeachment we will have the largest jury
>>nullification in history, if it's based upon the consensus of the people per
>>the various samples.
>Has it occured to anyone that if Congress votes for censure, we will have
>the fastest rulling by the Supreme Court that censure is unconstitutional
>in the history of the U.S.?

I confess to watching and listening to entirely too much coverage of this
event, on CNN, Court TV, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox, and the networks. Maybe more
coverage than I watched in 1995 for the O.J. trial.

The legislative branch, Congress, is free to pass any sort of resolution
condemning Bill Clinton that they wish to. In fact, the Congress once quite
constitutionally voted a bill of censure of President Andrew Jackson.

(These bills of censure are really just expressions of negative opinion.
They carry no consequences other than being "the sense of Congress.')

What they cannot do is to pass a "bill of attainder," a law punishing a
specific person, whether a President or you and me. By punishment I mean a
fine, or imprisonment.

Outside of this, they are free to do as they wish.

Not that I support such a bullshit minor punishment. Clinton is _asking_
for Congress to censure him, so what's the point?

--Tim May

Y2K -- LMGALMAO -- Loading my guns and laughing my ass off
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.