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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago!

Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon

Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests

FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker

Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain?

Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish'

Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow?

Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus

A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst.

Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan.

Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane

Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand?

LOOK AT MY ASS!

Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing

MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent

House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups

Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners

Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza

AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition

Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report

Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight

Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency

Stealing JFK's Body

Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence

ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away

American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda

Biden's Missile Crisis

British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost

NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon


Activism
See other Activism Articles

Title: The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality
Source: Me and Various
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 27, 2011
Author: Various
Post Date: 2011-10-27 14:31:40 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Constitution, Council of Censors, Council of Censure, Accountability
Views: 426
Comments: 10

In accordance with the Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights and powers vested in citizens of America with allegience to its Constitution, this is to establish The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality with the purpose of guarding all levels of our nation's government, as well as the Military that it directs and deploys, from encroachments upon and violations of this Republic's Constitution. The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality and each of its State branches has the authority to officially censure the breaches and breachers of our Constitution and also to apply all legal means of accountability and redress for ensuring adherance to it.

Introduction

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censure

censure: A formal, public reprimand for an infraction or violation.

From time to time deliberative bodies are forced to take action against members whose actions or behavior runs counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior. In the U.S. Congress, that action can come in the form of censure. Censure is a formal and public condemnation of an individual's transgressions. It is stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion. Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but they are not removed from their elected position. Not surprisingly, however, few censured politicians are re-elected.

While censure is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to adopt resolutions, and a resolution to invoke censure falls into this category. The first use of censure was actually directed not at a member of Congress but at a member of George Washington's cabinet. Alexander Hamilton, Washington's treasury secretary, was accused of mishandling two congressionally authorized loans. Congress voted a censure resolution against Hamilton. The vote fell short, but it established censure as a precedent. In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common, and censure against the president is rarer still.

Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement. The end result, however, is the same, and to all intents and purposes these are censure measures. At the same time, each censure case is different, and those delivering censure like to have enough leeway to tailor the level of severity. Still, the prospect of an open, public rebuke by one's peers is painful even for the most thick-skinned politician.

Noteworthy Censure Cases

Among the best known censure cases in Congress were the 1811 censure of Massachusetts senator Timothy Pickering for reading confidential documents in Senate sessions and the 1844 censure of Ohio senator Benjamin Tappan for releasing a confidential document to a major newspaper. Perhaps one of the more colorful censure motions was the 1902 censure of South Carolina's two senators, Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin. On February 22, 1902, they began fighting in the Senate chamber. Both men were censured and suspended for six days (retroactively).

Probably the most infamous censure case was the condemnation of Senator joseph r. mccarthy (R-WI) in 1954. McCarthy took the national stage at the height of the anti-Communist movement following World War II. McCarthy spent several years making claims that known Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government, and although he never offered proof of even one claim, his crusade was popular and powerful. Many Americans from all walks of life saw their lives destroyed in the early 1950s by groundless accusations of communist sympathies. His power unchecked, McCarthy became even more relentless, and in 1954 he openly attacked members of the Eisenhower administration in televised hearings. His colleagues realized they had no choice but to act. A censure committee was formed, and McCarthy as much as accused its members of being Communists. The vote to condemn McCarthy passed 65 to 22 on December 2, 1954.

Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) was found guilty in 2002 of taking illegal gifts and cash payments from a businessman and not reporting them. The businessman got help from the senator in Lobbying the government. Although Torricelli denied the charges, his colleagues found the evidence compelling enough to "severely admonish" him. While not called a "censure," this reprimand clearly had the same effect. Torricelli, who was up for reelection, saw his popularity plunge in a matter of weeks, and on September 30, 2002, he withdrew from the race.

Presidential CensureCongress rarely acts against the president with a formal reprimand. Andrew Jackson was the first president to be thus reprimanded, by the Senate in 1834, after he removed the secretary of the treasury (a responsibility that Congress believed rested with the legislature). Jackson was a Democrat, but the Senate was controlled by the rival Whig Party. Three years later, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Jackson's censure was expunged from the records.

President John Tyler was reprimanded in 1842 by the House of Representatives, which accused him of abusing his powers. Apparently Tyler had promised representatives on several occasions that he would support certain bills, only to Veto them when they arrived at his desk. In 1848, President james k. polk was reprimanded by the House for starting the Mexican War without first obtaining Congressional approval. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln and his secretary of war, edwin stanton, were condemned by the Senate for allowing an elected member of the House to hold commissions in the Army. The Senate voted for the reprimand 24 to 12, but it was referred to a special committee and no further action was taken.

In 1998, during the Impeachment trial of President bill clinton, several members of Congress attempted to have him censured instead, believing that while his behavior warranted rebuke it did not merit a full impeachment. The move for censure failed, and Clinton was impeached.

Further readings "Congressional Ethics: Historical Facts and Controversy." 1992. Congressional Quarterly. Washington, D.C.: CQ.

Thompson, Dennis F. 1995. Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Cross-references Congress of the United States; Impeachment.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

This is an edit to the phrase "all legal means" in the Preamble above to read "all lawful means".

Historical Background Information on Precedence and State Constitution Mandates for American Citizen Action Groups officially acting in the capacity of Guardianship for Constitutional Governance, with the authority to correct and discipline infractions and violators of it within the public sphere.

In the Founding Era, two States -- Pennsylvania and Vermont -- so recognized in their Constitutions, and other procedural documents in pursuance thereof, such Citizen Action Groups as authoritative and necessary to the proper administration and protection of Constitutionality as a check and balance on overreach and abuse of power. At that time, the groups were called a Council of Censors but the implication was understood as Censure. These are linked excerpts for further clarification and study of that part of our American Heritage:

http://vermontcouncilofcensors.org/history.html

“History of the Council of Censors”

“It is very usual for all public bodies, whether consisting of one or many natural ones, whose power is short of despotic, to wish for an increase of it; and to aim at that object as invariably as the needle without obstruction, points to the pole.”

In so recognizing, the 1785 Council of Censors justified their existence and the importance of the function bestowed on them by the framers of the Vermont Constitution in 1777. At the same time, the above observation foreshadows the sequence of events that led to their abolition in 1870.

Following the lead of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the framers inserted Section 44 calling for the creation of a Council of Censors, a body of 13 persons, elected by statewide election every 7th year, to serve a one year term. Their duties would be to determine, “whether the legislative and executive branches of government have performed their duty as guardians of the people; or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers, than they are entitled to by the constitution. They are also to enquire whether the public taxes have been justly laid and collected, in all parts of this Commonwealth- in what manner the public monies have been disposed of, and whether the laws have been duly executed.”

In order to accomplish these functions, the Council was given certain powers: “to send for persons, papers and records; they shall have authority to pass public censures- to order impeachments, and to recommend to the legislature the repealing such laws as appear to them to have been enacted contrary to the principles of the constitution.” Further, “the said Council of Censors shall have the power to call a Convention, to meet within two years after their sitting, if there appears to them an absolute necessity of amending any article of this constitution which may be defective- explaining such as may be thought not clearly expressed, and of adding such as are necessary for the preservation of the rights and happiness of the people…”

These four important functions were attended to by the First Council of Censors who met in 1785. Among the amendments sent forth and approved by the Constitutional Convention of 1786 was to add a 5th duty to the Censors, “to enquire whether the constitution has been preserved inviolate, in every part.”

The Council of Censors met thirteen times during the course of the next 93 years, as prescribed by the 1777 Constitution. According to “Records of the Council of Censors” by Paul S. Gillies and D. Gregory Sanford, “the Council is responsible for the repeal of the laws requiring all taxpayers to support the gospel, the meeting house, and the first settled minister; for ending the practice of adopting special acts relieving individuals of their debts or granting them immunity from prosecution for a period of years; for eliminating the practice of punishing offenders of serious crimes with maiming or branding; and for taking the legislature out of the business of holding trials and hearing appeals.” Further, the Council of Censors proposed to amend the Constitution to allow for woman’s suffrage as early as 1869.

Many of these important developments may have come about without the work of the Council of Censors, but it is clear that their office provided a needed check on both the Executive and Legislative branches as evidenced by the fact that of the at least 63 acts of legislation that the Censors found issue with, “the legislature responded to thirty-six acts by amendment or repeal of the offensive provisions.”

The Constitutional Convention that met in 1870 voted to abolish the Council of Censors. This action was the result of a political drama that unfolded over the course of 35+ years and had much more to do with jockeying for power among various potential power holders rather than an indication that the functions that the Council served were unnecessary. (continued at site)

http://enduringfreedoms.com/lj.html

The framers of the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution did not trust solely to "a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments of government" to protect the people against oppression and tyranny. They introduced a special organ of government for this purpose, called the council of censors. The censors were charged with the duties of inquiring whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate, and whether the government had performed their duties properly without assuming unconstitutional powers. They were also to inquire whether the public taxes had been justly levied and collected, in what manner they had been spent, and whether the laws had been duly executed. They were empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, to pass public censures, to order impeachments, and to recommend to the legislature the repeal of such laws as should appear to them to have been enacted contrary to the principles of the constitution. Furthermore, they were empowered to call by a two-thirds vote a constitutional convention to amend any article of the constitution which might be defective, explain such as might be thought not clearly expressed, and add such as might be necessary for the preservation of the rights and happiness of the people. Learn More (at the site. Note that only they could make the qualified call for a Constitutional Convention and not whimsical complainants or subversives.)

Edited to correct links.

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-10-27   17:00:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 1.

#2. To: All (#1)

This is an excerpt of The Federalist No. 48 by James Madison, aka Father of the Constitution. Friday, February 1, 1788. New York Packet:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy, and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar."

The other State which I shall take for an example is Pennsylvania; and the other authority, the Council of Censors, which assembled in the years 1783 and 1784. A part of the duty of this body, as marked out by the constitution, was "to inquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution. " In the execution of this trust, the council were necessarily led to a comparison of both the legislative and executive proceedings, with the constitutional powers of these departments; and from the facts enumerated, and to the truth of most of which both sides in the council subscribed, it appears that the constitution had been flagrantly violated by the legislature in a variety of important instances.

A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature.

The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution.

Executive powers had been usurped.

The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination.

Those who wish to see the several particulars falling under each of these heads, may consult the journals of the council, which are in print. Some of them, it will be found, may be imputable to peculiar circumstances connected with the war; but the greater part of them may be considered as the spontaneous shoots of an ill-constituted government.

It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: first, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; second, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; third, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands.

The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

PUBLIUS

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-10-27 17:29:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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