Are Constitutional Violations a Crime?

[Keith Broaders]

If a Senator or Representative votes in favor of legislation that violates provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, has that individual committed a crime and should they be punished or removed from office?

Please post your comments in the section below.

What is Your Opinion?

 

 

[Terry Trussell]

Don, I respectfully disagree with you. The crime is violation of oath of office, a gross betrayal of public trust--a felony. The damage done by an Un-Constitutional official action, to our Liberty far exceeds any simple crime. Such an act often lives in perpetuity and the costs and losses are incalculable. Any representative found guilty of creating or supporting any law, regulation, rule, or executive order, in contradiction to their Constitutional constraints, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and barred from public service for life.

[Jon Roland]

In U.S. law violation of an oath of office, which in common law would be "perjury of oath", is not illegal. There is no constitutional authority to make it a crime, which is arguably a serious omission from the Constitution, as I argue at http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-defect-in-constitut...

For that matter, even punishing witnesses for lying under oath, the only kind of perjury that survives in statute, is unconstitutional on state territory. It is only constitutional on federal territory.

It seems most participants in this forum need to learn a great deal more about law and the Constitution. These half-baked opinions aren't going to solve the problem.

[Terry Trussell]

Again, I yield to your expertise. I understand many states have laws against lying under oath, but it would make sense that there would be no federal prohibition against such an act. DC would be a ghost town.

Just what, then, constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors', if lying under oath is simply treated as a non-issue? Also, how does this fit with the 'appearance of impropriety'?

And I agree, we all have a great deal to learn. I am working on it.

[Terry Trussell]

I just read your link, referenced above--so, you've seen a couple of episodes of 'Matlock' I must have missed.

I found your presentation fascinating in that it explains why DC is effectively a lawless land. It was too easy to assume our elected and appointed representatives were bound by the same statutory restrictions as we commoners. Big mistake! Thanks. I'll keep reading.

[Jon Roland]

Actually, if one counts all the federal criminal statutes that properly apply only on federal territory, people in such territories are hardly lawless. More "overlawed".

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are grounds for impeachment and removal, but only territorial citizens and military personnel are subject to criminal prosecution for them. They are largely the subject of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military and militia.

[Terry Trussell]

So, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is not part of the military? I know in the present case is a fraud in office and has the military acumen of a teaspoon, but there must be some technicality that can tie him to his crimes. I get your point on 'overlawed' but if there isn't the will to prosecute, the law is effectively nullified, right?

[Jon Roland]

Many laws are what lawyers call "aspirational", that prescribe some action or inaction but have no penalty clause for violation. Most of the Constitution is like that. The only penalty clause for most violations is removal or non-re-election. Basically the Constitution puts us all on the honor system, and makes elections the only remedy for most violations.

There is actually a reason for that, because to enforce a criminal law there has to be an enforcer and an enforcement process, and whatever is set up to play that role becomes superior to anything else. If we had enforcers of the Constitution other than the people those enforcers would be our dictators.

[Joe brown]

So we the people are the enforcers of our constitution?

[Terry Trussell]

Jon, I like your responses. They are logical and easy to understand. Your point of the 'honor system' is correct. The problem we have (and have always had) is when we elect someone who is dis-honorable. It's especially damaging when our dishonorable officials surround themselves with so many others of their ilk. That makes an informed and perceptive electorate all the more essential. Since 'informed' is educated out of our population, and there are so many bright and shiny objects to distract them (us), we are sitting ducks.

[Lynn Childs]

Absolutely, no question.  Their first duty is to their oath.

[Carl Swensson]

The answer. though obviously yes, needs a little further expansion... Where do we hold them responsible?

The when can only be when enough people get together in THEIR jurisdiction and pay a visit to the Sheriff of the County where these Senators and Congressman call home and where they have their office if different. Minimum of three need to sign individual affidavits (Notarized) swearing to be a witness to the crime of treason committed by these Senators and Congressmen. Fraud upon the people could be a charge worth pursuing as well since there is no Statue of limitations on it.

Take it from experience.., filing or sending anything to the State Atty. Gen. yields zero results. The reason is quite simple. Your State Atty. Gen. is not there to interface with the Public except when seking re-election. They only respond to and work with Attorneys and Public officials. We the People are not allowed entry into that secret world.

[Terry Trussell]

Very interesting strategy, Carl. Of course such an action can only work if you have a Constitutional Sheriff--and there are too few Sheriffs with the testicular fortitude to fulfill their rightful sworn duties.

I'd love to see it happen in just one jurisdiction. The publicity might start a landslide of support for other jurisdictions. If just three county sheriffs do their duty, DC will take notice and we will begin to see immediate results.

I think you're on to something.