芭芭拉乔丹对弹劾的文章声明(英文版)

余年寄山水
558次浏览
2020年08月12日 05:00
最佳经验
本文由作者推荐

华夏典当行官网-圣诞节作文


B
arbara
C
harline
J
ordan

Statement on the Articles of Impeachment
delivered 25 July 1974, House Judiciary Committee

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior
members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this
inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have
tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the
United States:
document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not
included in that
Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the
process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been
included in

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not
overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole;
it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to
the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.


nation themselves?
proceed from the misconduct of public men.鹿 And that's what we're talking about.
In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public
trust.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to
assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that
member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The
Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential
check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the
encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the
legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and
to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute.
They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is
chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into


account. It is designed to
designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.虏 The
framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in
order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown
tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the
separation-of-powers maxim.聽 The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It
limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and
opposed the term
misdemeanors,
the Virginia ratification convention:
branch. We need one branch to check the other.


be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.

community,
parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.鲁 I do not mean political
parties in that sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but
impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term
crime[s] and misdemeanors.
who said that
land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to
overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons.
Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign
Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass
Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such
overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big,
because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which
purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin.
We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this
morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.

The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the
Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession
of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the
23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his
participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard


Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's
fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be
delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the
President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication
that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The
committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that
material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American
people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their
President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some
of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison,
from the Virginia ratification convention.
suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will
shelter him, he may be impeached.

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to
defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid
and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that
the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to
Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were
implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are:
President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be
grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached.

Justice Story:
extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into
operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.
about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We
know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the
President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office,
after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young.
their liberties from violation.

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable

4
Beginning shortly after the
Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged
in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful
investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public
announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence
will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable,
those who misbehave. Those who


James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention:
if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.
with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the
President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy
of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a
federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of
criminal justice.
Constitution.

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach
the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be
abandoned to a 20th- century paper shredder!

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced
in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question.
We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer
the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations,
guide our debate, and guide our decision.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

螳螂捕蝉教学设计-四大银行招聘


2017年1月日历-班主任工作案例分析


有关写中秋节的作文-讲规矩有纪律心得体会


gre报名网站-学雷锋活动总结


中国学生营养日-寒假日记300字


春节注意事项-亚太经合组织成员国


金融工程专业-证券考试准考证打印


我的童年生活作文-有关大自然的手抄报