Sentences Generator
And
Your saved sentences

No sentences have been saved yet

969 Sentences With "framers"

How to use framers in a sentence? Find typical usage patterns (collocations)/phrases/context for "framers" and check conjugation/comparative form for "framers". Mastering all the usages of "framers" from sentence examples published by news publications.

type: All Declarative Interrogative Exclamative

structure: All Simple Compound Complex Compound-Complex

length: All <=10 words 10-20 words 20-30 words 30-50 words

Framers' dilemma The framers of the US Constitution found the selection of the chief executive to be among the most vexing issues they faced.
Why our framers set up our government as it did.
That is the process the Framers mandated in our Constitution.
We are rightly grateful to the framers of the Constitution.
One major barrier is the unfortunate decision of the framers
Framers' design of protecting a broad range of substantive fundamental
What might the Constitution's framers say about this bureaucratic proclamation?
The Framers wanted officeholders to be accountable to the voters.
Here, again, the circumstances do not pass the framers' test.
Look to the framers of the Constitution for an answer.
The framers counted on this kind of ambition countering ambition.
The framers no doubt considered it important to do so.
But the framers' insights can only take us so far.
Turley's opening statement outlined the framers' care in choosing words.
The Framers could have easily excluded presidents and did not.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned a far different system.
The framers' goal was to discipline and constrain political debates.
That's not how the framers intended our system to work.
That is why the framers created the possibility of impeachment.
The Constitution's framers would be appalled by such a notion.
The framers went to great lengths to circumscribe our government's reach.
Constitution and its framers for much of its history, generally demobilizing
Which no doubt was just what the framers meant to say!
AMERICA'S framers designed separate institutions to make, enforce and interpret laws.
But it is becoming dysfunctional in ways the framers never envisaged.
Does that track with anyone even remotely familiar with our Framers?
The Framers created the presidency largely to keep Congress in check.
"They had muskets," Stevens said of the framers of the Constitution.
The subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the framers.
"I don't think the framers imagined partisan politics," says Adam Liptak.
Deep division and disagreements were hardly alien concepts to the Framers.
It is an institutional act that would have baffled the Framers.
The trial of impeachments, as understood by the Framers, included witnesses.
Again, the framers had illicit ties with foreign powers in mind.
Here are each of the core offenses the framers feared most.
The framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.
"Bribery had a clear meaning," to the framers, Mr. Feldman said.
They quoted the Constitution's framers, Sir Thomas More and contemporary pols.
That is exactly what the Framers intended for Congress to do.
The framers of the Constitution famously punted on the question of slavery.
"The Framers saw Donald Trump coming almost 250 years ago," Goldstein wrote.
All of those framers and founders, they warned about tyranny in government.
The framers of the Constitution were mostly eminent planters, merchants and lawyers.
More importantly, the Framers submitted their plan to the citizens for approval.
Framers relied in giving the Senate the responsibility to provide its advice
Klostermeyer pays his framers $25,250 to $22014,26 a year, depending on experience.
But the Framers also determined that these checks alone were not sufficient.
First, the Framers built into our system a strong bias toward inaction.
The originalists don't really give a hoot about what the Framers wanted.
The Framers knew that in its pure form democracy could be dangerous.
This can't be what the framers intended or what the public wants.
Before free trade, picture framers in Canada mostly turned to Peterboro Matboards.
And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
Ironically, the Framers would have been least offended by such a notion.
This sort of partisanship is precisely what the framers tried to avoid.
The Framers never intended to invest an individual senator with such authority.
"Sometimes they laid down very specific rules," she said of the framers.
The pattern informed the framers of the Constitution, who echoed that concept.
By "tyranny" the framers did not mean simply the abuse of power.
The framers considered the Constitution to be the primary protector against authoritarianism.
The Framers had no delusions about the jurors designated in the Constitution.
The Framers made it hard to amend the Constitution without widespread support.
Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention.
So, and you decided hire some framers to work for you directly?
Then there's the theory that the framers really didn't believe in democracy.
Isn't it great that our Constitution's framers set up three branches of government?
The needs of women, for example, were blithely overlooked by the document's framers.
In the Framers' design, the judiciary also had an additional and special role.
Local framers don't have this option, as all frames are made to order.
That actually explains why the Framers included an exception for pardons during impeachment.
The Framers of our Constitution meant Congress to be a great deliberative body.
The Framers wrote the First Amendment to guarantee everyone the right to speak.
America's constitutional framers created a First Amendment that allowed for a free press.
Over the years, OPM has not achieved the status that its framers envisioned.
The power of legislative oversight by Congress was well established by the framers.
The framers intended these hearings to be a political, not just legal, exchange.
Rather, they are using the Framers as cover for their right-wing policies.
For the framers of the Constitution, the answer was that the people do.
The Framers had no concept of remote communications or distance voting of course.
The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth don't matter.
And forfending collusion with a foreign sovereign was an imperative for the Framers.
The Framers allowed only five explicit exceptions to Senate simple-majority rule: 2628.
Indeed, the framers specifically empowered states to choose the method of appointing electors.
The Framers were confident that elections would work to keep presidents in line.
The framers knew that throughout history republican governments ultimately degenerated into authoritarian regimes.
The name the Framers had for such an unimpeachable officer was a monarch.
The framers considered the office of the presidency to be a public trust.
The framers considered the office of the presidency to be a public trust.
The framers intentionally designed our government in a way that makes change incremental.
Because the Senate of the Framers is not the Senate we have today.
Because Second Amendment proponents recognize how the framers intended for change to happen.
Most scholars agree that the framers intended the latter: acting president, special election.
The Framers' approach to this sort problem is to let ambition check ambition.
They're not told that the Electoral College was not the framers' finest hour.
Our framers understood that we didn&apost want to be ruled by two states.
It "off balances" the checks and balances intended by the framers of the Constitution.
When the Framers drafted our enduring Constitution, they created a president, not a king.
The Framers explicitly rejected, as grounds for impeachment, the various criteria offered by Appelbaum.
The Framers never intended for legislative powers to fall onto unelected executive branch officials.
The Framers of the Constitution gave the president the pardon power for good reasons.
After all, the Framers explicitly rejected maladministration as a ground for impeachment and removal.
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy of last resort, deliberately made difficult by our Framers.
The Framers specifically designed the Electoral College to dilute democracy and favor the states.
The notion took root in what America's constitutional framers crafted as the First Amendment.
But the framers also intended for the president to fulfill a clear constitutional responsibility.
So how is it possible for the Framers to forget a bill of rights?
But while the framers were wise and thoughtful men, they did make some mistakes.
But the framers did not put it into the Constitution to protect the South.
On further and closer inspection, however, the case against the framers begins to unravel.
" The framers' error was that they "didn't expect candidates to emerge and run nationwide.
Yet sometimes it has been conservatives who leave the text and the framers behind.
The framers, through checks and balances, were intent on limiting power, not unfettering it.
He becomes what the framers feared — an elected king, answerable only to his supporters.
This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared.
It constitutes an abuse of power expressly condemned by the Framers of the Constitution.
It is the Senate's turn now to render sober judgment as the framers envisioned.
The framers use this term loosely, to be applied much more politically than legally.
" Feldman added that the current impeachment inquiry over Trump allegedly soliciting foreign assistance in an election is "precisely the situation the framers anticipated" when writing the Constitution, and said it is "very unusual for the framers predictions to come true that precisely.
The framers didn&apost intend that Federal prosecutors were going to rein in executive excess.
Legally prohibiting or confiscating guns would mean amending the Constitution, which the Framers made hard.
"The Foreign Emoluments Clause was forged of the Framers' hard-won wisdom," the complaint said.
"The framers of the 1890 Constitution made no secret of their intentions," the complaint read.
"The Framers labored over the question of where the impeachment power should lie," Rehnquist recounted.
The framers of the constitution were acutely aware of this, and decided to fudge it.
Central to the Framers' protection of individual liberty was a system of checks and balances.
Indeed, it was one of the most important, near-unanimous decisions made by the Framers.
Most of all, let them read, with great care, the actual words of the Framers.
The Framers did, however, give Congress the power to determine how states elect their representatives.
The framers of the Constitution were, without question, men of pre-eminent judgment and intellect.
They worked seven days a week through July and August and madly hired more framers.
But the structure of the Constitution and the words of its framers contradict that view.
But look at what the framers of the Constitution did, rather than what they said.
The framers did not anticipate every problem, and they did not directly address this one.
The selection of the president was one of the most confounding decisions the Framers faced.
But Barr is simply wrong that the unitary executive theory "unquestionably" describes the framers' vision.
The framers expected that senators would be accountable to their consciences and their state legislatures.
To legislate well, the Constitution's Framers emphasized one quality in Congress above all others: deliberation.
"President Trump has realized the Framers' worst nightmare," it wrote in the 658-page document.
The intent of the Framers on war powers places many Republicans in an odd position.
The Framers of our Constitution did not anticipate or envision such polarization of political parties.
For the Framers, this conduct was the classic form of a high crime or misdemeanor.
In fact, the articles describe the kind of misconduct the Framers designed impeachment to address.
Feldman responds to Turley: 'Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers' 1:15 p.m.
It was a big switch from the framers, some of whom suggested a lifetime presidency.
Contributing Opinion writer Scrutinizing the avuncular sphinx Chief Justice John Roberts throughout the impeachment trial of President Trump, I kept wondering whether he will preserve or ransack the legacy of the framers we revere — framers like the Republican Betty Babcock and the Democrat Dorothy Eck.
But America's framers didn't even anticipate that there would be political parties in the first place.
They want the court to legislate new rights into the Constitution, that the framers never intended.
First, it is wrong because the framers absolutely would have considered a hotel bill an emolument.
As the framers knew, impeachment uniquely violates the separation of powers upon which the Constitution rests.
With their conservative, Christian roots, the framers of the UN Declaration did not envisage gay marriage.
In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain.
It is hard to believe the framers would be happy with the result of their work.
Fortunately, these questions, despite their framers obviously having answers in mind, are in a way genuine.
To Madison and other key Framers, the very definition of tyranny was the concentration of powers.
The protection for legislative offices is one of the oldest constitutional values embraced by the Framers.
"The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President," he said.
A struggle for power has been playing out since the nation's founding — as its framers intended.
It fails to perceive why our Framers opposed emoluments of all types — including gratuitous election assistance.
Whether or not there is an argument that is not what the Framers could have intended.
The direct electoral check, however, can no longer function today in the way the framers intended.
Our framers never intended for the majority will to be stymied by use of the filibuster.
Francisco Franco, its framers sought to recognize the portions of the country with distinct cultural heritage.
In writing the Constitution of the United States, the framers were attempting to balance competing views.
Your dance career brought you into contact with some of the framers of American modern dance.
So Franklin and the framers turned to a provision of British common law known as impeachment.
The Framers gave the appointment power to presidents to allow our judiciary to change with society.
The framers used the resulting data to make the three-fifths clause in the Constitution operational.
What the framers understood is that these two come as a pair; they are necessarily connected.
The point is not that our current system is somehow a betrayal of the framers' vision.
The Framers despised political parties, but what they really feared was a binary two-party system.
It would be hard to argue that this is the government the Framers had in mind.
The framers understood that re-election wasn't enough to compel good behavior from the chief executive.
And that would also be a real erosion of the system that the framers set up.
The framers worked hard to avoid the use of impeachment as an impulsive or partisan device.
This would turn it into an entirely partisan process, and the Framers did not intend that.
The framers of the Constitution had considered having impeachment trials take place in the Supreme Court.
"The framers instead chose the Senate as the place for the impeachment trial," Professor Bobbitt said.
The Framers struggled to establish a standard and process to make impeachment both difficult and substantive.
Indeed, the framers cited this problem as among the leading reasons for their declaration of independence.
"The framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the president," he added.
Is this expansion of the impeachment qualification on the pardon power consistent with the framers' understanding?
The report says: Abuse of power was no vague notion to the Framers and their contemporaries.
The Framers knew politicians would often take the nation into wars for stupid or shortsighted reasons.
There may be no better illustration of what the Constitution's framers considered to be impeachable conduct.
After vigorous debate, the framers included the power of impeachment in the Constitution for a reason.
Last time I checked them the framers wrote it, and it was ratified by all the states.
The framers made impeachment hard because they didn't want Congress throwing out presidents in partisan hissy fits.
The framers of the Constitution were farsighted about many things, but presidential succession was not among them.
If only the framers of the amendment were more specific in their language to settle the matter.
They also say the framers were a bit muddy with their language on U.S. obligations to territories.
The Framers favored a single executive because they feared a plural executive would diffuse responsibility and accountability.
The power struggle between the branches playing out now is what the framers relied on and expected.
In our constitutional system, the framers made impeachment, not prosecution, the check on abuse of executive power.
The Framers thought it would allow removal from office for executive abuses as well as for crimes.
Having self-serving tech giants shutting people up is hardly the alternative envisioned by the constitutional framers.
Democrats who disagree are at war with the federalism that the Framers hardwired throughout the Constitution itself.
Although not strictly unconstitutional, these orders are not how the Framers intended the country to be governed.
And then there was the fact that the framers, deliberately, did not explicitly mention slavery even once.
"The framers were very much aware that we could end up with an immoral demagogue," Ornstein said.
Our colleague Adam Liptak considers what the framers of the Constitution had to say on the matter.
The framers did not make it easy for Congress to remove a democratically elected president from power.
The framers of our Constitution did not seek to make it easy to convict Americans of crimes.
According to the framers, the First Amendment protected the right to "peaceably" — not violently or threateningly — assemble.
The Constitution's framers envisioned America's political leaders as bound by a devotion to country above all else.
The Framers thus remedied the Articles of Confederation's chief defect by formally separating executive authority from Congress.
When the Framers debated whether to include an impeachment clause in the Constitution, they had serious concerns.
The Framers codified these principles throughout the Constitution, including in a pivotal provision called the Appointments Clause.
There should be little doubt that the Framers viewed misuse of the pardon power as potentially impeachable.
Rakove thinks the framers of the Constitution would be surprised at the conversations we are having today.
"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers," said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School.
The first is that the framers believed property could not be taken away without due process of law.
But they could also rewrite the rules entirely -- like the original framers of the Constitution did in 1787.
What the framers put together has several moving parts, and the system has evolved to have several more.
I saw it in the way that contemporary political debates are conducted with reference to the framers' intent.
"The Framers anticipated this objection and created two constitutional safeguards to keep the Senate in check," Rehnquist wrote.
Because the framers of the constitution wanted to hold back tyrants and mobs, social media aggravate Washington gridlock.
The Framers included this provision to ensure no one person can fill every principal office in the government.
The framers did not contemplate a complete and shameful refusal by senators to even participate in the process.
And his focus was much more on the words' meaning than on the possible intent of the framers.
If anything, given the concern of the framers about executive profligacy, this could make this violation even worse.
They call Democrats "vicious" and "vengeful" just for doing the job that the framers of the Constitution required.
Some insurers are responding by hiking premiums, which were initially set well below what the law's framers expected.
The Framers recognized that the power to impeach was as much a political issue as a legal one.
Previously, the primary influences on the Framers were thought to be Enlightenment figures such as Locke and Montesquieu.
I am not an "originalist" who thinks the Constitution can be boiled down to what the framers believed.
The framers of the Constitution made clear that everyone counted in apportioning Congress (if not in whole numbers).
Our Constitution puts Congress first, and its framers expected legislators to dominate the work of the national government.
Many anti-abortion advocates see Roe as a departure from the framers' original intent in drafting the Constitution.
Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race Why did the framers choose this system?
The truth is that the framers themselves had confused and often contradictory views about what the Constitution requires.
But the framers never explained precisely what they meant and so each generation has, in effect, redefined it.
But the Framers knew people to be selfish, ambitious and susceptible to the seductions of fame and fortune.
The Framers realized a unitary and independent executive was necessary through the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
The Framers wisely made removal from office hard to do, which is why impeachment is so very rare.
This tees up Alexander's deeper argument: The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment.
I'm sure you're aware that many constitutional scholars say that this is exactly what the framers worried about.
Checking and balancing these three separate, yet intertwined, branches of the federal government became the Framers' key goal.
It is precisely the kind of vague open-ended and subjective term that the framers feared and rejected.
The Framers were clear in their intent to grant the power to initiate war with the legislative branch.
That state of affairs constituted the very essence of the encroaching tyranny the Constitution's framers sought to forestall.
Neither political party has a right to reject the words and intentions of the Framers for partisan advantage.
The first question the Framers of our Constitution had to answer was one of the hardest: Who matters?
The framers of the Constitution prescribed a clear remedy for presidents who so violate their oath of office.
The framers of the Constitution had no way of anticipating digital warfare being used in a propaganda attack.
The comma, he suggested, said more about the haphazard punctuation practices of the day than the framers' intent.
He said the framers of the Constitution had contemplated having election maps drawn by state legislatures, not commissions.
The framers of our country anticipated that such a situation would occur, and that it would lead to corruption.
"As the Framers were aware, private financial interests can subtly sway even the most virtuous leaders," the complaint said.
Thomasson said the alleged freight topping negatively affected all stakeholders including truckers, investors, and bankrupted framers in some cases.
Homebuilders continue to complain they cannot find skilled labor, especially framers, and that buildable lots remain in short supply.
The Framers' structure remained in balance for almost 150 years, but everything began to change during FDR's New Deal.
The framers of the Constitution didn't want the United States to be ruled by a king unaccountable to anyone.
Its framers envisioned reservations primarily as a weapon to target social exclusion, and saw it as a temporary measure.
It's clear the framers of the Constitution meant for impeachment to broadly cover any transgression from a rogue president.
Were Congress to impeach on grounds expressly rejected by the framers, they would be violating their oaths of office.
Although the Framers intended the president to be only the "Chief Magistrate," many recent presidents have promulgated executive orders.
But Trump has turned the federal government into a money-making operation, which is just what the Framers feared.
The Justice Department has urged the court to uphold the separate sovereigns exception, citing the intent of the framers.
The Framers rebelled against the notion that court judgments could be set aside by the other branches of government.
Instead, the framers gave a small, lucky group of people called the "electors" the power to make that choice.
These ills didn't come about by accident; the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution's framers.
"The Framers of the Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President," Trump writes in the statement.
The framers' own damning words seem to cinch the case that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.
Colbert said the framers of the Constitution probably hadn't meant for the president to be able to pardon himself.
Baked into the political system devised by our framers is an increasing bias toward geography and away from people.
The framers of the Constitution, and the states that ratified it, clearly expected electors to vote as they pleased.
Less than a decade after the Constitution was drafted, the framers' idea of an independent elector was effectively kaput.
Nothing caused the Framers greater anxiety than the new office they were creating, the presidency of the United States.
Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny.
While many Framers were Christian, Jefferson famously took a razor to portions of the New Testament he found implausible.
Do the framers really envision ending the tax exemption for credit unions and eliminating the new markets tax credit?
Technically, perhaps not, though slavish adherence to the framers' understanding has by no means always limited modern constitutional interpretation.
Indeed, much of modern constitutional law has evolved without concern for what the framers did or did not intend.
The framers designed impeachment to be a check on a president who twists the office's powers for public gain.
"The framers of the Constitution were students of history," said Deepak Gupta, one of the lawyers behind the suit.
For that reason, under Article I of the Constitution, the Framers expressly required a declaration of war from Congress.
He means to usurp your power over appropriations — the most fundamental constitutional power granted to you by the framers.
More than that: It presumed, as Stevens noted in his rueful dissent, that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to limit, for all time, the ability of elected officials to regulate the civilian use of deadly weapons—weapons with a capacity to maim and murder that would be utterly unrecognizable to the Framers.
In his impressive new book, The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, Bancroft Prize-winning legal historian Michael J. Klarman seeks to understand why the Framers produced such an undemocratic plan in the first place, and how they managed to get it approved over strong opposition in the state conventions.
By punting on slavery, the framers set the stage for the American Civil War to take place 22013 years later.
You know, people who understand that the Constitution needs to be interpreted the way the framers meant it to be.
SEVERINO: I think that&aposs in the Declaration of Independence and I think our framers may have said that too.
The Constitution grants authors exclusive rights to profit from their work, which the framers knew would motivate Americans to innovate.
We cannot say that the Framers illicitly seized the power of the federal government; there was no government to seize.
This hardly provides the attachment to the common citizen and accountability to constituents envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
The president's lawyers argue the framers did not intend to ban payments in exchange for services such as hotel stays.
Leader McConnell operated the way the Framers envisioned, demonstrated by the increased activity and quality of legislation the Senate produced.
People talk loosely about American democracy, but the framers of the Constitution — wary of monarchies — created, more precisely, a republic.
These days, the framers' answer to factions — thoughtful, measured decision-making by elected representatives with competing political ideologies — is failing.
In dividing power among three separate branches, the framers created incentives for each to attack, criticize and educate the others.
If the framers had wanted a new American king with unlimited powers, they could have written the Constitution that way.
Since its inception, Rule 85033 has reflected the Framers' understanding of one of the core characteristics of a "reasonable" search.
Short of that, the honest truth is the framers set up a system that depends on the separation of powers.
The 14th's framers replied that birthright should apply to all and that restrictions in naturalization law would minimize the problem.
The framers of the Constitution thought long and hard about the risks of imbuing the president with unlimited pardon power.
The framers of the Constitution did not want, and did much to prevent, abuses of power by a tyrannical executive.
But the framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense.
For instance, he said, the framers should have made it easier to remove the president before his term was over.
"The framers implicitly immunized a sitting president from ordinary criminal prosecution," said Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale.
The filing argues that Trump's conduct was the  "the Framers' worst nightmare" and that he should be removed from office.
Most constitutional scholars agree that the framers did not want presidents impeached for maladministration -- meaning doing a really bad job.
Yet this is precisely the kind of abuse that the framers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause.
That interpretation likely would have baffled the framers, who also charged the president with defending the country from foreign invasion.
However, the Affordable Care Act subsidies showed that the Framers underestimated how short-term political ambitions could overwhelm institutional interests.
The framers knew they were making it really hard to remove the president, and I think they did that intentionally.
The Framers of our Constitution created a governmental structure that controls democratic passions in order to facilitate negotiated policy outcomes.
The Framers of the First Amendment 'did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.
Decrying this concession as too little, he signed the bill but then did the sort of thing the Framers feared.
The Constitution's framers required this process precisely in order to stop a president from plunging our country into needless conflict.
When it comes to war powers, however, they see "penumbras" and other "emanations" that refract thel intent of the Framers.
This is the opposite of the system of limited and clear laws that the framers of the Constitution had intended.
But I believe that it misses the broader purpose that the framers had in mind when establishing the impeachment structure.
They cite fears among the framers of the Constitution that United States officials could be corrupted by gifts or payments.
They will be counted along with the rest of us in the grand decennial enumeration that the Constitution's framers decreed.
They will be counted along with the rest of us in the grand decennial enumeration that the Constitution's framers decreed.
Advertise on Hyperallergic with Nectar Ads New York-based Eli Wilner is one of the art world's most renowned framers.
Furthermore, some commentators, like Peter Beinart, have argued that if electors blocked Trump, they'd be fulfilling the Constitution's framers' intentions.
Look what I found in the back of a frame-a message from the framers in Mt Kisco, NY from 1993.
The framers understood that voting was the basis of every other political right, so why not enshrine it into the Constitution?
In short, the framers clearly established impeachment as the primary method to punish a president who commits misdeeds while in office.
While this kind of executive policymaking is not what the framers had in mind, it's still going to become more common.
Strict constructionists interpreting the Constitution according to the Framers' original intent do not want a "Republican Obama" who flouts bad laws.
Once you choose a color, one of their in-house framers will choose the hue that looks best with your piece.
Framers of the Constitution had this ideal in mind when they designed the Senate to promote discourse rising above narrow interests.
When the Framers of the U.S. Constitution arrived in Philadelphia in late May 1787, they had many issues on their minds.
It is precisely what the Framers thought they had prevented by refusing to give a president authority to go to war.
The Framers made that right explicit in the Bill of Rights following their experience with the indignities and invasions of privacy.
The framers established impeachment as a legal and peaceful means for removing a rogue leader without resort to revolution or assassination.
The Supreme Court today is both political and powerful in ways that would be unrecognizable to the framers of the Constitution.
There is no indication the Framers meant the president could use this power to shield himself from inquiries into possible corruption.
In Orren and Skowronek's telling, it was the Progressives who delivered the decisive intellectual blow against the framers' vision of politics.
Still, Congress really cannot help itself, because the Framers never really intended it to plan an economy in the first place.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers devoted themselves to building a system that would be safe from moneyed influence.
The arcane and deliberative rules of the Senate were designed by the Constitution's framers to force broad consensus and incremental change.
The Constitution's framers anticipated that men like Trump might one day capture the presidency, and took steps to prepare for it.
That's why the framers of the Constitution wrote that it aimed at creating "a more perfect union" not a perfect one.
One of the framers of the Constitution, James Madison, stated that information access for citizens is a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Indeed, it would no doubt be termed "socialist" by the framers of conservative messaging, who regard any redistributionist project as such.
Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the treatment of corporations (which the Framers distrusted) as people—or of money as speech?
Turning the Senate into another House of Representatives is not what the Framers intended and does not produce lasting legislative solutions.
The Framers, after all, were not worried about the secrets we shared with our neighbors in conversations over the back fence.
The Framers of our Constitution believed that jury nullification was part and parcel of what a jury trial was all about.
The two greatest oracles for the Constitution's framers, the French philosopher Montesquieu and the English lawyer William Blackstone, both attacked it.
Intriguingly, the framers anticipated the possibility that a president might try to use his power to thwart investigations into his actions.
And yet … what if the framers had admitted that parties were indeed inevitable, and would stretch across the branches of government?
"Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights and the Flaws that Affect Us Today," by Cynthia and Sanford Levinson.
Although they built in safeguards, surely the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined a president such as Donald Trump.
"The Framers designed a system in which no one is above the law, not even the president," the former lawmakers wrote.
While the Electoral College is probably the most maligned institution created by the Framers, it has proven to be extremely resilient.
And that is precisely what the Framers had in mind when they created an independent judiciary, above the fray of politics.
"President Trump's conduct is the framers' worst nightmare," wrote the seven Democratic managers, led by Representative Adam B. Schiff of California.
I think the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a jury and not jurors.
The Framers set a high standard for impeachment and removal, to deter politicians from using the constitutional process for partisan gain.
The Framers grasped, in a time of dire peril to the fledgling nation, that national security cannot be achieved by committee.
Only 6900 percent of Americans we surveyed knew when the Framers wrote the Constitution; most incorrectly thought it occurred in 2628.
"The framers did not talk about the right to bear arms as one of the set of natural rights," he says.
The Framers had particular concern over the actions of border states and how their laws or actions might impact foreign relations.
It's well-established that Democrats, despite their newfound commitment to "the intent of the Framers," have completely misunderstood the Constitution's meaning.
Even if they honestly believe that if the Framers were to have observed Trump, they would have wanted to remove him.
The free press was created by constitutional framers to hold the political establishment accountable as an informal "Fourth Estate" of government.
Mr Trump's manipulation of a foreign government to smear his opponent is the sort of election-rigging that bothered the Framers.
This practice would go far to achieve the result the framers most feared: unchecked power in the hands of the executive.
For that reason, nearly all of our wars have been undeclared and, as the Framers expected, politicians repeatedly misrepresent their roles.
Earlier on, the framers of the Constitution had considered the issue of how to set pay rates for members of Congress.
The framers of the Constitution, having experienced a popular revolution, were hardly recommending that the will of the majority be ignored.
So when the framers of the Constitution adopted this language from fiduciary law, they were drawing from those core legal principles.
In short, the supposed balance between state interests and individual citizen interests that the Framers struck isn't much balance at all.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution wisely limited presidential powers to prevent the abuse of power and ensure the rule of law.
His lawyers' public response has been to misread and trivialize what the framers of our constitution saw as a foundational American rule.
In soaring language, Huawei's attorneys argue the legislation "produces the very tyranny which the Framers feared" and should therefore be ruled unconstitutional.
The framers, wary of concentrated authority and of replicating a monarchy in America, empowered the legislature to raise armies and declare war.
Gerhardt said the framers intended it to refer to "political crimes," including abuses of power or other offenses against the United States.
And this mistake by the framers was compounded by subsequent constitutional amendments, because all of those amendments are defined in negative terms.
"That would leave the amendment essentially in a legal limbo that was not foreseen by framers of the Constitution," Woodward-Burns said.
Third, there are some historical arguments that support the idea that the framers of the Constitution assumed presidents could not pardon themselves.
Unlike originalists, non-originalists have learned that democracy needs constitutional protection against political threats the framers may have under-estimated or ignored.
If the Framers did not think they were establishing, say, a right to abortion, then contemporary judges should not recognize one, either.
The Framers were specific about how this republic is supposed to work: Congress declares wars, and presidents serve as commander-in-chief.
But they were ultimately unwilling to uphold the checks and balances that the framers designed in the case of a lawless president.
Its most celebrated jurisprudential doctrine, originalism, holds that the Constitution can only truly be understood as an expression of the framers' intent.
To assert that the framers of the Constitution would be comfortable with such a result is to utter a grave historical libel.
But didn't the college, whatever the framers' intentions, eventually become a bulwark for what Northerners would later call the illegitimate slave power?
The Framers created an independent judiciary, appointed for life, for the purpose of assuring that justice would be done in individual cases.
The one thing the framers feared above all else was a single person who was elevated to a position above the law.
The assertion that an election next November forbids honor this January is a joke, and the framers would have laughed at it.
To the contrary, the Framers, and particularly James Madison, were acutely aware of the dangers of factional and personal interests in government.
One interpretation is that this bloc supports the Electoral College system out of fealty to their conception of the framers' original intent.
While it does not rise to the level of treason, such conduct inches sufficiently close that it would have alarmed the framers.
The framers of the Constitution knew that it's human nature to amass, entrench and abuse power to the detriment of regular people.
"The Framers worst nightmare is what we are facing in this very moment," House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a statement.
Warren Hastings, who was the former British governor general of Bengal, was undergoing his impeachment even as the Framers met in Philadelphia.
Having fled a monarchy, the Framers of the Constitution understood that when a single branch gets too much power, individual rights suffer.
Why would the framers envision such a statement to be necessary, not on the first drafting of the Constitution, but in hindsight?
The framers of the Constitution went to great strides to ensure that no branch of government had more power than the other.
Their consensus was that Americans would be able to keep their republic only if newcomers adopted the values the framers were nurturing.
What the framers of the Constitution knew from experience with King George III is that unlimited power will inevitably be used arbitrarily.
That is, the Framers took care to provide that the president cannot thwart his own impeachment by pardoning himself of impeachable offenses.
The implication is that the meaning and intent of the framers is perfectly clear, and that judges should adhere rigidly to that.
It was quickly translated into multiple languages, and Montesquieu's ideas about liberty had a strong influence on the framers of the American Constitution.
When the framers came to Philadelphia in 1787 to improve on the Articles of Confederation, they had to wrestle with these local loyalties.
It also could fit into the emergent political theory of the framers — that decentralization was the key to preventing tyrannous majorities from forming.
THE nine justices of the Supreme Court are used to applying 18th-century principles to an America that would bewilder the constitution's framers.
The Constitution does not mention political parties at all, and the Framers were worried that the rise of powerful factions would undermine liberty.
Moreover, the Framers demanded that the Constitution should be voted up or down at special ratifying conventions rather than by the state legislatures.
The treaty did what its framers intended it to do: it effectively ended the use of war as an instrument of national policy.
The Framers understood that the only exceptions that needed to be explicitly stated were those that could not be found in historical practice.
Since common law permitted pardons at certain stages in the impeachment process, the Framers had to be clear that our Constitution did not.
Trump is precisely the kind of demagogue the Framers feared, which is why we shouldn't hesitate to use the Constitution to stop him.
It is about ensuring that what the Constitution's framers feared most — unbridled government power that curtails individual rights — does not come to pass.
When leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin whether the framers had decided on a monarchy or a republic.
The framers of our Constitution created the impeachment power because they understood that removing a rogue president before an election might prove critical.
There's a particular benefit to this that I think the framers of the Constitution would approve of: There's little time for big changes.
The decision by the Framers to have the chief justice preside strongly suggests that the decision was not intended to be entirely political.
That would be fundamentally inconsistent with the independent judiciary the Framers created to the enforce the Constitution's limits and prevent abuse of power.
According to the framers' design, we need only speak with a unified national voice on topics that affect the Union as a whole.
The framers of our Constitution were concerned both about absolute executive power and untrammeled democracy where momentary majorities run roughshod over the minority.
The framers of the 1965 immigration act considered the idea, but yielded to conservatives who feared it would remake the nation's ethnic profile.
"It seems that the framers of this republic figured out how to make it bulletproof to this type of interloper," he told THR.
The framers envisioned a special role for the Senate, a place where longer terms and an older minimum age promised wisdom and judgment.
For Congress, Lessig notes that the framers were deeply concerned about corruption, but rarely focused on the evils of individual quid pro quos.
Rather, it follows two offenses that give a good sense of the kinds of crimes the framers had in mind: treason and bribery.
The framers of the Constitution had just finished fighting an incredibly violent and costly war against a tyrant when they wrote the Constitution.
Sadly, the Senate failed to meet its Constitutional obligation set forth by the framers to hold a fair trial and do impartial justice.
The first is that the framers of the Constitution and the language they used seemed to contemplate that electors would use independent judgment.
As extraordinary as the impeachment of a president may be, the Framers must have believed the process might someday have to be used.
Critics of Dershowitz&aposs defense said that the crimes the framers had in mind aren&apost limited to those found in statute books.
The framers' wisdom in giving this responsibility to a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial has never been clearer.
It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code.
He said in a speech two years earlier that originalism should not focus on the intent of the framers, who disagreed among themselves.
" Democratic House managers in a brief filed Saturday called the president's behavior "the Framers' worst nightmare" and a "danger to our democratic processes.
That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid in establishing a high standard for impeachment and giving federal jurists a lifetime tenure.
The framers of the Constitution would find the process by which an American president launches combat operations in Libya or Syria as unrecognizable.
The claim that the framers of the Constitution empowered presidents to impede investigations for corrupt ends goes too far, many legal scholars say.
Critics said the framers of the law might have also miscalculated because many growers say there is little upside from getting a permit.
In Britain, Warren Hastings was acquitted, as the Framers knew — and they would be shocked to see Trump impeached on such thin grounds.
Judge Wilson noted that the framers of the State Constitution in 1938 had specifically warned against the invasion of privacy in electronic communications.
How could the framers of the constitution have banned capital punishment in the Eighth Amendment when, in the Fifth, they specifically contemplated its existence?
"The framers were very shrewd about political power, they were always trying to constrain actors who were acting in their self-interest," he said.
Wade might be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution and the intent of its framers.
"This is what I share in common with the framers of the bill," said Robert Green, a senior pastor at Fondren Church in Jackson.
The Framers were political scientists with no existing model for electing a president and tremendous ambivalence over what they wanted out of an executive.
Those in favour of tighter regulation insist that the framers used the first clause to tie gun-rights to the need for a militia.
Church-and-state cases took no longer: the Framers had built no wall between them, and anyway, didn't government get its authority from God?
But one of the reasons that the framers of the Constitution gave the pardon power to the president was that he is politically accountable.
The Framers were thus preoccupied with stemming corruption—an age-old challenge made all the more urgent by the Founders' experience under British rule.
" The framers of the 16th Amendment thought about scrapping the direct tax clauses entirely, but they decided instead to limit the amendment to "incomes.
The Framers of the Constitution explicitly rejected a "plural executive" in favor of a single chief magistrate at the head of the executive branch.
Even with the best intentions, and the clearest facts, it's not obvious what Madison and the other framers would want their heirs to do.
The Framers had personal and bitter experience with being the subjects of warrants that did not meet these criteria, and they wanted them forbidden.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, it is important to note, were silent on whether "winner take all," pluralities or majorities should decide elections.
And so the framers gathered to create a national government, with checks and balances to avoid abuses of power that they could easily foresee.
An oft-overlooked aspect of the Constitution is that the Framers of the Constitution did not trust the voting masses to make good decisions.
While the framers may have disagreed on the balance of legislative versus executive power, there was one topic they did agree on: political parties.
Because Congress, and especially the House, fed most directly on public opinion, it enjoyed a natural advantage so overpowering that the framers feared it.
This critique prompted the framers to articulate a second, more important explanation for vesting the pardoning power in the president: protecting the nation's security.
The framers of the Constitution viewed factional politics as something to be avoided in a virtuous democracy instead of an inevitable component of it.
The Framers were deeply concerned about these concepts, but they ultimately chose a process rooted in compromise, rather than one based upon normative principles.
While I favored calling witnesses in the House investigation, I noted that the Framers did not specify when, if ever, witnesses would be heard.
So when the Framers talked in terms of Bribery, Treason and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors they were referring back to English Common Law.
Both were Federal Appeals Court jurists for the District of Columbia who said they favored interpreting the Constitution in light of its framers' intentions.
The framers "entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning," he wrote.
Why do think the framers chose to shield journalism — as President Kennedy once said, "the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution"?
These laws are impermissible because they attempt to turn the states into administrative units of the federal government — contrary to what our framers adopted.
By adding "other high crimes and misdemeanors," the Framers plainly intended that the bases for impeachment should not be limited to treason and bribery.
The alleged conduct looks very much like the betrayal of public trust that the Framers feared presidents might pursue absent the possibility of impeachment.
It resumed in late August, and the framers settled on a solution in early September, less than two weeks before the convention would adjourn.
These concerns were central for the Framers, who were looking at the Constitution from the very state-centered perspective of the Articles of Confederation.
ROOSEVELT: -- preserve, protect, and defend -- NARRATOR: The framers carefully added these specific 103 words as the binding pledge a new president makes to the country.
Kyllo turned heavily on the fact that the thermal sensor was used on a home—the quintessential private place to the Framers of the Constitution.
To indict a president via "an unelected grand jury and prosecutor" is "inconsistent" with the framers' "carefully considered judgment" that it is impeachment or bust.
It was not, he insisted, what the Constitution's framers had in mind when they cited "high crimes and misdemeanors" as cause for a president's removal.
Why did the framers entrust judges with lifetime appointments, when every other democracy in the world imposes term limits, a mandatory retirement age or both?
The framers likely understood "high" to be read with the preceding crimes (treason and bribery) as wrongs against the public or of a political character.
No matter the outcome, the legislative branch has made affirmative decisions about this issue repeatedly, precisely fulfilling the constitutional order as the Framers designed it.
She criticized the decision to exclude her, saying on CNN the Framers of the Constitution did not make Vogue magazine the "gatekeeper" for the race.
The Framers would be turning in the their graves if they saw that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellAre Democrats turning Trump-like?
It was because of this fear of partisanship in the House that the Framers left the ultimate decision to remove an official to the Senate.
Its framers in fact removed a previous reference to marriage, effectively kicking the issue down the road for possible inclusion in a future family code.
That's wrong as a matter of history: The framers of the Constitution were concerned primarily with ensuring that the president wasn't selected by uneducated commoners.
The framers lodged full responsibility for the executive power in a president of the United States, who is elected by and accountable to the people.
Though neither of these concepts is explicit in the document, the teenage Ms. Schreck merrily interprets them as prime examples of the framers' brilliant modesty.
The Justice Department contended that the Constitution's framers meant only to bar federal officials from providing a service to a foreign government and receiving compensation.
The framers of the agreement believed that national governments had the greatest responsibility to research the histories of works held in public, government-owned collections.
The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict a president.
It was, in fact, one of the examples the Constitution's framers deployed to explain what would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors," the standard for impeachment.
The framers of our Constitution gave the president important authority over foreign affairs, including the power to nominate ambassadors, negotiate treaties and receive foreign ambassadors.
On Wednesday, Representative Adam Schiff argued that Mr. Trump's conduct was exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they devised impeachment.
The drafters will, in effect, be writing the people's will on a blank page; nothing in the old constitution will be binding on the framers.
While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesn't mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less.
The problem is that, thanks to the 85033d Amendment, the democratic check on the pardon power does not function today quite as the Framers imagined.
"This is a difficult time for our country, but this is precisely the kind of time for which the framers created the Senate," he said.
Since he claims to be an originalist, I asked him about his view of what the framers intended with the Emoluments Clause in our Constitution.
This, too, is at odds with norms associated with the rule of law, separation of powers and expectations articulated by the Framers of the Constitution.
"The framers had this one conversation on July 20, 1787, where they laid out in really clear terms what they were worried about," Feldman continued.
Of course, the impeachment proceedings he is currently facing are doubtless distracting, but that didn't stop the framers from including that remedy in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution "would have been horrified by that prospect," Burnham said, since it would put the courts above Congress and the executive branch.
First, it reflected the belief of many framers that the "excess democracy" shown by state legislatures that had passed debt relief legislation needed to be curtailed.
"As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote," Justice Ginsburg wrote.
Yet, members transcended their partisan impulse, even in legitimate cases of wrongdoing, to follow the standards set out by the Framers for the use of impeachment.
The Supreme Court was instilled by the Framers with the ultimate say on the law, and because of that, it needs the trust of the governed.
He saw no conflict in following a conservative approach to interpreting the vision of the framers and defending individual rights, particularly for insular or unpopular groups.
James K. Vardaman, a racist Democrat who would go on to become governor and then a United States senator, was one of the new constitution's framers.
Despite the universalist rhetoric of the United Nations' framers, the great powers would only acknowledge the legitimacy of some peoples, foreclosing that same recognition for others.
A lack of media diversity will not only further isolate marginalized communities, it will threaten the very democracy the Framers of the Constitution sought to achieve.
"To prevent tyranny and protect individual liberty, the Framers of the Constitution separated the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the new national government," he continued.
The framers intended the Senate, which was not popularly elected at the time the Constitution was written, to be less partisan and act more like judges.
Four catchers in camp, Austin Romine, Carlos Corporan, Eddy Rodriguez and Kyle Higashioka, are considered excellent pitch framers, with General Manager Brian Cashman singling out Higashioka.
In the debates surrounding the framing of the Constitution, the framers were very clear: No one, least of all the president, can be above the law.
But in the US context, the framers of the Constitution set up the impeachment process to be a way Congress can remove the president from power.
We have winner-take-all electoral institutions oriented around the principle of majority rule, and compromise-oriented political institutions the framers designed to prevent majority tyranny.
The framers of the 14th Amendment reaffirmed this when they debated how to replace the clause that counted slaves as only three-fifths of a person.
A lead military role in law enforcement heralds an emerging dictatorship — that's not a signal that Congress or the framers of our Constitution wished to send.
But the Constitution's framers meant not only to rule out bribes, he wrote, but also "to guard against even the possibility" of corruption and foreign influence.
Its meaning and legacy are, in many ways, as fiercely contested today as was the case when the framers first debated how to make America great.
Did the framers intend for impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to be the only vehicle for handling any wrongdoing by the president?
But perhaps the Framers did not intend impeachment to sit on the shelf, like a precious umbrella awaiting a rainstorm bad enough to justify its use.
Another theory, recently offered by political scientist Josep Colomer at the Monkey Cage, is that the framers never intended for the Electoral College to choose presidents.
Instead, Congress should turn to the powers designed by the framers for exactly such circumstances: the tools of funding, oversight and, as a last resort, impeachment.
The framers of the United States Constitution embraced that tradition when they preserved for the president one of the traditional powers of kings: the pardon power.
" That's why the decision of innocence or guilt was left to the Senate which Hamilton said the framers considered "a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent….
Some Framers argued that a president should be subject to removal by the legislature if he engaged in malfeasance of office or other comparable noncriminal misconduct.
They write that the upper chamber is not functioning "as the Framers of the Constitution intended" in the letter, which was published by The Washington Post.
Indeed, Trump's cease and desist tactic was a clear attempt at prior restraint, the very thing constitutional framers were prohibiting when they created a free press.
General Mattis's selection also raises potentially consequential questions about the issue of civilian control of the military, a standard set by the framers of the Constitution.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended that both Congress and the president should participate in the decision whether to commit American military forces to battle.
But this new wave of activism will succeed only if movement leaders drive for change the way framers of the U.S. Constitution intended it to happen.
But praise belongs as well to two institutions that the framers of the Constitution wisely protected, seeming to have anticipated threats like those we now face.
So, again, the standard stories that are told that the framers created an Electoral College because they didn't trust voters doesn't line up with the data.
Not sure that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned a small family-owned crafts business when they wrote "We the People" but okay, sure, he's a textualist.
This is exactly what the framers of the Constitution wanted, because they were suspicious of democracy and saw status quo bias as a defense of private property.
Acting for personal interest rather than national interest while subverting congressional appropriations is a prime example of the autocratic conduct the Framers believed warranted removal from office.
My point was that these are complex issues and the Framers did not intend impeachment for mixed motive decisions that contain an element of personal partisan benefit.
By letting users shop online, and centralizing the framing process in a single location, the company has been able to offer customers lower prices than traditional framers.
But the framers designed impeachment to acquire a very high standard so it&aposs not some type of impulse buy response to a conflict with another branch.
Still, the framers meant it to be used if, somehow, a manifestly unfit person were to become president and endanger the constitutional order they so carefully constructed.
The requirement that the removal vote be by a two-thirds supermajority reflects the Framers' view that such a nakedly political judgment must reflect a broad consensus.
Like Scalia, Thomas is an originalist, with a staunch belief that the US Constitution should be interpreted based on what the framers intended when it was adopted.
Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking...The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President.
All of this is in direct violation of express conditions set by the Framers in the Constitution, but that appears entirely irrelevant to Congress and the courts.
The framers almost surely intended to exclude legislators from that definition, as two constitutional scholars, Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, pointed out nearly a quarter-century ago.
The Framers of our Constitution intended the House of Representatives to be the 'People's House'—an institution directly accountable to the electorate through more frequent, localized elections.
This nihilistic form of partisanship impairs Congresses' capacity to serve as the great deliberative, problem-solving body that the Framers of our Constitution meant it to be.
Programs and policies that affect interstate commerce are exactly the kind of manipulation of trade between the states that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to prevent.
Although the framers of the Constitution believed that elections would work to keep presidents in line, the people eventually sought a permanent limit through the 22nd Amendment.
"To prevent tyranny and protect individual liberty, the framers of the Constitution separated the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the new national government," Judge Kavanaugh wrote.
It is, in effect, a moment of reckoning, as the framers intended it to be, a judgment on the standards of society as they shift through time.
"If someone stays in office for 15 years, the people won't dare express their opinions to him," said Fang Yi, one of the framers of the Constitution.
It refers to the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms because the framers of the Constitution preferred state militias to a standing national army.
This should be common sense for any politician to support, because it assures that the checks and balances intended by the framers of the Constitution remain intact.
Under the initial apportionment of the House approved by the framers, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42 percent.
Start with Sean Wilentz's "No Property in Man," which argues that the Constitution's framers took pains (however strangled or surreptitious they were) to ensure slavery's eventual demise.
During the formation of our nation, the framers of the Constitution chose the Senate for what Hamilton called "the awful discretion" to remove the president from office.
The impeachment of Samuel Chase steered the United States toward judicial independence, and an accommodation with a party system that had not been anticipated by the Framers.
How about the framers of the Constitution, who established the impeachment process to do essentially that and declined to add any asterisks about the next election's imminence?
The framers, in fact, wanted a government that wasn't too sensitive to voters — that mediated voters' whims and prejudices through representatives presumably taking a longer, cooler view.
Giuliani claimed that seeing impeachment as a political, not criminal, process — despite it being how the framers saw the issue — is problematic and in need of correction.
Fast backward to the summer of 1776, and you will discover the historical context for the anguished debates over executive power by the framers of the Constitution.
It is also true that the Framers could not have perceived the specific problems facing a diverse nation with more than 300 million people living in it.
Robert Bork, an early adviser to the Federalist Society and an appeals court judge, had an answer: a return to the framers' original conception of the Constitution.
We were reluctant to wield a tool that the framers intended to be the last line of defense against tyranny without a clear case of impeachable offenses.
That is why he insisted on specific, daunting criteria for impeachment, "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," rather than "maladministration," as some framers had suggested.
Recognizing that senators would likely vote differently depending on the openness of their decisions is telling, revealing that the impeachment process of the Framers is deeply flawed.
In short, the framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have "plainly" intended that modern-day result by virtue of the "plain" language of that constitutional amendment.
Republicans have contended that Democrats' pursuit of impeachment lowers the standard envisioned by the framers of the Constitution for deploying Congress' weightiest weapon against a sitting president.
But the Framers did not explain precisely how Congress and the president would share the power to authorize our armed forces to engage in offensive military operations.
To protect the republic, the Framers gave the representatives chosen directly by the people the tools they need to safeguard the democracy, including the power to impeach.
The framers were realistic about what they had done and what they hadn't — Jefferson called them an "assembly of demigods" admirable but aware that they weren't perfect.
That is some evidence, though more than a little indirect, about what one of the framers of the Constitution thought about how broadly the emoluments clause swept.
"In doing so, they complied with the Framers' clear intent that the decision to use offensive force against another country must reside solely in Congress," he said.
In his words, "the framers of the Constitution thought the compartmentalization of legislative power not just a tool of good government or necessary to protect the authority of Congress from encroachment by the Executive but essential to the preservation of the people's liberty ... "[B]y restricting lawmaking to one branch and forcing any legislation to endure bicameralism and presentment, the framers sought to make the task of lawmaking more arduous still.
He knew for certain that the Framers were on his side; the Devil was on the other; and that heaven was his portion, for he was always right.
The framers of the Civil Rights Act — the immediate precursor to the 14th Amendment, and the first place national citizenship was codified — knew exactly what they were doing.
" Mr. Rosenberg added that accepting the bank's view "promises only to muddy the line between legislative and judicial power, and frustrate the constitutional system wrought by the framers.
"I'm glad the framers of the constitution saw fit to ensure that president was someone who was captain of a large ship with a small rudder," he said.
To understand the term "natural born citizen" as written by the framers of the Constitution, they pointed to British common law and legislative action by the First Congress.
Moss was a firm believer in the powers of Congress and that the Framers of the constitution had placed those powers in Article I for very good reasons.
The dual process reflects the framers' strategy of curtailing the power of individual branches of the federal government through checks and balances: the president proposes, the Senate disposes.
"I'm glad the framers of the constitution saw fit to ensure that president was someone who was captain of a large ship with a small rudder," said Musk.
But as the Ninth Circuit made clear in denying the government a stay of a lower court's suspension of the order, that's not the Constitution our Framers designed.
The Framers' fear with respect to the presidency was that it had the power to act unilaterally, making it potentially the most dangerous branch in the short run.
Congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibilities only when it has sufficient resources to do the job the framers of that document outlined in Article One of our Constitution.
The framers of the Commonwealth's Constitution understood this as well, and provided that payment of general obligation debt receive priority over any other debt incurred by the Commonwealth.
This is alarming, particularly because Leo and the society are committed to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, which is anything but what the Framers had in mind.
It seems odd that the framers would understand the need for forthright policy discussions among our federal lawmakers while also denying the same privilege to the executive branch.
The Constitution is a document of commonsense law and individual protections as amended with the Bill of Rights, written by unselfish framers who saw beyond their individual desires.
I guess the question is, does the president believe the framers envisioned a system where the president could pardon himself — where the president could be above the law?
Scalia rejected the view, claiming the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and their framers made no mention of gay rights and therefore did not intend to protect gay people.
Constitutional scholars say that similar offenses — ones involving the lawless use of official power threatening the constitutional order — are what the framers thought could justify removal from office.
" With that posthumous revelation, Wilentz argues, "the framers left room for political efforts aimed at slavery's restriction, and eventually, its destruction, even under a Constitution that safeguarded slavery.
" But as Larsen convincingly responds, "If we are being originalists, why is it not the natural law precepts that the Framers and ratifiers themselves embraced that are binding?
" He said the constitutional framers worried about "giving Congress too much power" to weaponize impeachment on a partisan basis, adding that abuse of power is too "open-ended.
The committee's job will be less about unearthing new bombshells and more about fitting already-known evidence into the impeachment framework envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Mitch McConnell: We have indeed witnessed an abuse of power, a grave abuse of power by just the kind of house majority that the framers warned us about.
"In the Framers' view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people—a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order," he said.
To the Editor: The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, provided impeachment as a mechanism to protect the integrity of our democracy from the abuse of power.
The framers would be the first to remind us that impeachment is an assessment not only of a president's commitment to the Constitution, but also of our own.
Three of the scholars argued resoundingly for impeachment, saying that Mr. Trump's Ukraine dealings easily met the threshold that the framers set in the Constitution for impeachable offenses.
But the Framers were concerned that a president could abuse his authority in ways that would undermine the democratic process and that could not wait to be addressed.
One instance from history is that if the Framers observed President Wilson following his debilitating stroke, they probably would have wanted to remove him from the White House.
Gerhardt said that the framers expected that over time, there would be case law that would help to determine what constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" eligible for impeachment.
Opinion When we think about the framers of the Constitution and how they handled the issue of race, we conjure up the extremes: the hypocrites and the heroes.
In June, Mr. Tillman filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that some framers of the Constitution did not think the emoluments clause applied to the president.
Unlike Schiff, the average American is able to see that the Framers did not intend for Congress to use its impeachment power for such partisan differences over policy.
Most people, well, know local framers don't actually store any inventory, so they buy from distributors when you choose off of that wall of 10,000 frame styles. Right.
Blissfully, Schreck describes Amendment Nine as a magical "penumbra" that the framers left intentionally ambiguous enough to allot citizens extra rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution's text.
So it seems clear that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that there was an individual right to bear arms -- and that the right could legitimately be regulated.
You do the history of our great founders and framers and philosophers, but at the end of the day, I&aposm looking at it from a very practical standpoint.
The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion – and the framers never even considered making it a constitutional right to abort unborn babies at nearly any point in a pregnancy.
The framers of the treaty knew it would be difficult to identify an extraterrestrial organism on Mars, for instance, if we had already spread Earth life on the planet.
And the net result will be that Democrats will have abused the US Constitution to satisfy political passions instead of approaching impeachment as the solemn act the framers intended.
" The retiring senator invoked the framers of the Constitution to express disdain over a situation "where a partisan majority in the House of either party can stop the government.
He knew for certain, though, that the Framers were on his side; the Devil was on the other; and that heaven was his portion, for he was always right.
But the act's framers were convinced that the Lochner-era Court that made laissez faire economics a virtual state religion would never go for more lofty human rights justifications.
Michael's is the biggest framing retailer in the US and offers 450 frame options, 400 mats, and four glazings, both acrylic and glass through in-house framers Aaron Brothers.
And that's why my answer is the framers of the United States Constitution, because of a certain man known as President Donald J. Tr— Alan: Hey man, fuck you.
As the framers envisioned it, the justices appointed to the Supreme Court would mainly interpret and apply federal law when necessary to resolve disputes involving the rights of individuals.
Most scholars believe that the framers of the Constitution believed that the president is empowered to use his powers to repel sudden attacks, but not to affirmatively initiate conflicts.
It is plainly preposterous to hold that the Framers, in all their wisdom, wanted to deprive the government of a means to put an end to this widespread destruction.
Messitte based his interpretation on the constitutional text of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses and his reading of the framers' intentions, along with dictionaries and other outside sources.
The framers left education out of the federal Constitution so that states could control its development, not so that a business could fill the void at the national level.
"There is no use to equivocate or lie about the matter," James K. Vardaman, one of the constitution's framers as well as a future governor and senator, once boasted.
When the framers of the Constitution were still debating the shape of institutions we have today, 95 percent of America was rural, as the 1790 census classified the population.
There&aposs a real risk that without proper constraints, these requests will start to resemble the types of things the framers of the Fourth Amendment were so concerned about.
Using the pardon power to encourage future law-breaking is inconsistent with the Framers' purpose for the pardon power, which was to ensure an avenue for mercy and justice.
Accordingly, many of the Framers believed that the day that newly-elected members were sworn in would be more cause for celebration than the inauguration day of the president.
But the Framers rejected parliamentary democracy because they wanted to give the president independence, all the better to check the legislature and ensure decisiveness and vigor in the executive.
The Framers wisely adopted this unusual structure because they believed that it was the only way to assure that Americans would be free of oppression by their own government.
Several legal scholars contend that the filibuster is unconstitutional, as the framers, such as James Madison, opposed a governmental structure where a vocal minority could interfere with majority rule.
That the system enabled the election in 2016 of precisely the kind of demagogic figure the framers designed the system to block suggests the framework may need serious repair.
Rather, the court concluded that the framers had assigned to the Senate the exclusive discretion to determine how best to adjudicate charges contained in duly adopted articles of impeachment.
Compiled by the seven Democrats serving as impeachment managers, the brief describes the president's conduct as "the Framers' worst nightmare" in arguing that he should be removed from office.
The framers were specific if they thought a super-majority vote should be required for certain things, such as expelling a member, overriding a veto or ratifying a treaty.
It's sort of working the way it's intended because the framers understood that by requiring two-thirds for removal, they were making it incredibly hard to remove the president.
The problem is the Framers assumed that we would have, as Madison said, "temperate leaders" who would not allow the "tyranny of their own passions" to drive foreign policy.
They have argued that impeachment based on abuse of power is a "radical" concept and that the framers did not want Congress to judge whether presidents abused their discretion.
"One of the things that the framers of the Constitution most worried about was the threat of foreign intervention in our government, what they called 'foreign intrigue,' " he said.
Whether intended by the framers or not, one benefit of the Electoral College system is that a clear-cut winner is determined on Election Day or relatively shortly thereafter.
" The Constitution's framers "built the Senate to provide stability ... to keep partisan passions from boiling over," McConnell said, adding, "Moments like this are why the United States Senate exists.
After all, "human trafficking is the single largest illegal industry in the world," as the framers of this additional recent petition for resignations of prominent MIT officials made clear.
Democrats largely argued we're veering away from the ideal of a republic complete with the robust separation of powers -- also known as checks and balances -- envisioned by the Framers.
There's a reason the framers wrote the Constitution that way, these analysts say; they worry a president might appoint loyalists into high-level positions without a check from lawmakers.
Channeling her sometimes overzealous devotion to the Constitution for dramatic effect, Schreck knows how to build optimism in the American framers before drilling down to its more malignant core.
When the 214th Amendment included the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the framers and the public clearly understood that they were setting aside the children of foreign diplomats.
The fact that the framers did not outlaw slavery in the Constitution has left a lasting legacy of social strife, violence, racism, and inequality that we have not yet escaped.
In his opinion for the majority, Rehnquist delved into the constitutional history and debates among the framers to support the notion that impeachment was not the business of the judiciary.
And all of this underscores the wisdom of the Framers, who created a federal union that, even after the Civil War, is still subject to the sovereignty of the states.
The framers thought that by spreading power across independent branches of government, they would make it hard for parties to form, and institutional allegiances would triumph and balance each other.
But in this election year all face partisan scrutiny (not to mention stonewalling) that would be unrecognisable to both the framers of the constitution and to a young Antonin Scalia.
Since these laws were binding in the colonies in the 1770s, the Framers must have been "intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like 'natural born'".
By allowing the president wide discretion in making appointments, but subjecting those choices to Senate review, the framers sought to ensure both strong executive power balanced by a strong Congress.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Framers intended to incorporate limitations on the pardon power that existed in British law, or common law, when the Constitution was drafted.
"All of the statements the Court cites were made long after the framing of the Amendment and cannot possibly supply any insight into the intent of the Framers," he noted.
Although Article II grants the president broad authority, in part because the framers envisioned George Washington as occupying that office, Article I contemplates that certain powers exceed executive prerogative: e.g.
Penn has also publicly questioned whether the broad investigative authority granted to the special counsel by the Justice Department is in keeping with what the framers of the Constitution intended.
A National Review conservative and one of the early #NeverTrumpers, Brookhiser has written several books on the framers of the Constitution, with titles such as What Would the Founders Do?
But even setting this problem aside, Marshall's record as chief justice suggests that he was under no illusion that constitutional law was about recovering the pristine virtue of the framers.
"When they brought out constitutional order into being, the Framers had their minds trained on a threat to republican self-government that this Court has lost sight of," he added.
" By constraining what could be called treason and what is used to prove it in court, Madison concluded that the Constitution's framers had erected "a barrier to this peculiar danger.
The Framers considered the ability to eject an executive so critical that they enshrined it in the Constitution even before they had agreed on the details of the office itself.
And yet these orders increasingly are used by modern presidents to maneuver around the requirements of the system of checks and balances set up by the Framers of the Constitution.
Whatever Justice Kennedy's other flaws, he was willing to read the 153th Amendment in line with the framers' expansive intent, especially in his decisions on gay rights and reproductive rights.
Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which ruled that African Americans could not be considered citizens because the framers of the Constitution considered African Americans to be inferior.
Judge Messitte repeatedly challenged that interpretation, asking whether the framers meant merely to rule out outright bribery or to ward off situations that could give rise to corruption as well.
While Britain's kings traditionally wielded a prerogative power to suspend or dispense with laws, the framers of the Constitution required the American president to faithfully execute them, Mr. Shane noted.
The word "faithfully" is a signal that the framers wanted to limit the exercise of presidential powers to "good faith" reasons, bona fide purposes and fidelity to the public interest.
"This Court should not, under the guise of 'liberty,' and in defiance of both the Framers and settled precedent, impose an agency structure more susceptible to corporate influence," they wrote.
In a democracy the People are the ultimate repository of political power and authority and the Framers created the House of Representatives to be the direct representative of The People.
The removal of a sitting president is the last line of defense provided by the framers of the Constitution against the abuse of power by the leader of our country.
Third, multiparty democracy shouldn't seem radical because it embodies the same values — fluid compromise and flexible coalition building — that the Framers, particularly James Madison, saw as essential to self-governance.
"The president made very clear throughout the campaign that he was looking for justices who were going to interpret the Constitution as the framers meant it to be," he said.
In 1954, the court made an unusual request for a different kind of briefing: The justices wanted to know about the original intentions of the framers of the 14th Amendment.
Speaker: Does it wear on you though, that one of the ... One of the foundational reasons or ways that the framers wrote the constitution, was almost fear of foreign interference.
Antifederalists "charged the Framers with seeking to establish an aristocracy of sorts," objecting to such anti-democratic elements as the Electoral College and Supreme Court appointments—complaints that resonate today.
But the Constitution is clear about what is an impeachable offense, and there is serious doubt that the conduct of Trump is consistent with what the framers had in mind.
"This is a difficult time for our country, but this is precisely the kind of time for which the Framers created the Senate," McConnell said after he set the schedule.
When the framers of our Constitution laid out the process of impeachment in 1787, they could hardly imagine the circumstances that brought us to this week's vote in the House.
It is imperative that the Senate convict and remove him from office now, and permanently bar him from holding federal office," they wrote, labeling Trump's conduct "the Framers' worst nightmare.
The hearing today turned in large part on the constitutional definitions of abuse of power, bribery and foreign interference, ideas that the framers considered the grist of any impeachable case.
The framers of the Constitution were careful to design a process for removing a president from office that they hoped would rise above the nation's petty political squabbles, he said.
Paradoxically, by creating two levels of government our framers secured more freedom for the people, not less, because the two governments were intended to exist in tension with each other.
Although technology developed in the nineteenth century, of course, it wasn't until the twentieth century that the fragile balance that the framers had struck between privacy and surveillance was threatened.
The framers of the Constitution thought that preserving the right to bear arms might help the populace form a militia that could fight a standing army that turned against the people.
Justice Scalia was among the first to argue that constitutional interpreters should not be interested in the intentions of the framers but in the original meaning of the words they used.
The framers, in other words, built our government on the assumption that lawmakers could rally together during times of crisis, rather than dividing into teams and digging in for partisan advantage.
" Discussing the the hospitality industry plaintiffs, he wrote, "Nothing in the text or the history of the Emoluments Clauses suggests that the Framers intended these provisions to protect anyone from competition.
One of the most telling moments at the convention came when a delegate named Rufus King asked what precisely the framers meant in using the words "direct taxation" – no small question.
It is part legal, because it involves a trial; but the framers intended it to be political, too, because the trial is conducted by elected representatives who, inevitably, think as politicians.
In fact, any list of top jurists active today who will apply the Constitution as it was written and understood by the framers in judging cases would no doubt include Kavanaugh.
" Nichols replied later that the Constitution gives Congress wide latitude because the "framers did not intend the judiciary to be able to haul in Congress for rulings we do not want.
The Framers of our Constitution created the federal courts to ensure that where there is a legal wrong, there is a place where people can go to get a legal remedy.
As for his jurisprudence, I do not think that the only correct way to interpret the Constitution is to interpret its words (text) as, supposedly, our 18th century framers understood them.
The framers had not envisioned that the person who would benefit most directly from the conviction of a president on impeachment charges might sit on the jury — but there Wade was.
For the president, who foolishly tweeted that Robart was a "so-called judge," this will be an important lesson on the original intent of the Framers and how the system works.
Although this is less than many local framers, it is still a vast, expensive-to-maintain selection, which is perhaps why they are losing out to online framing services like Art.
Our framers understood the great benefit to our nation when many diverse voices, from a multitude of religious, cultural, and philosophical backgrounds are welcomed to serve in making our country one.
That is precisely why the Framers, and later courts, have narrowly defined this crime and why relatively few treason cases have been brought and even fewer have succeeded in this country.
He argued that his colleagues had insisted on a separation of powers far stricter than what the Framers had envisioned, one ill-suited for the modern era of the administrative state.
If nothing else, this issue highlights the fact that today's political events — and the polarized responses they evoke — constitute a real test of the great experiment created by our Constitutional framers.
The Framers wisely wanted the electorally accountable Congress — and not even the fairest prosecutor in all the land — to render the ultimate judgment when a president is accused of serious misbehavior.
In recent years, the right has pushed hard on the rhetoric of originalism—the idea that the Constitution should be followed strictly according to the intentions of its Framers in 1787.
The Framers underscored the importance of the states in our constitutional system by making each state's right to two Senators the only provision in the Constitution which can never be amended.
The Framers of the Constitution planned ahead for the death of Presidents—hence, Vice-Presidents—but they failed to address an unnerving prospect: a President who is alive and very sick.
He also has been active in the Federalist Society, the conservative organization founded in the 1980s to promote judicial restraint and faithful adherence to the Framers' conception of a limited government.
"The framers did not create the power to pardon as a way for the president to protect himself and his associates" from being prosecuted for their own criminal behavior, he said.
But the framers gave the slaveholding states the greatest reward: The more slaves they owned, the more representatives they got, and the more votes each would enjoy in choosing the president.
They will do so on the streets, in the courts, via the press and through the checks and balances the framers of the Constitution created precisely to rein in a demagogue.
The judiciary, the legislative branch and fourth estate – institutions ennobled by the framers of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights – have delineated important limits to the reality-TV star's governance.
The framers of our Constitution believed that the decision to involve ourselves in a conflict like the one in Yemen requires the consent of the people, expressed through their elected representatives.
To address these concerns, the Framers adopted a burdensome standard — high crimes and misdemeanors (in addition to treason and bribery) — that would restrict impeachable offenses to truly egregious abuses of power.
Even if Congress had such power, which it does not, that would not address the fact that the Framers placed executive power in the hands of the executive and his subordinates.
"It's difficult to imagine a purer example, even on the president's own account of his conduct, of why the Constitution's framers thought it essential to include the impeachment power," he added.
History supported his position, he said, as the framers of the Constitution drew on English procedures under which the House of Commons brought charges of impeachment to the House of Lords.
"The Framers worst nightmare is what we are facing in this very moment," he said on Twitter on Saturday as the Judiciary Committee report about the history of impeachment was released.
"If we allow that office to have no limitations, no boundaries, eventually, the framers understood this: It is human nature to abuse power and to ultimately use it against regular people."
" The Framers wanted an independent president who could be removed only for specific acts of wrongdoing, so they agreed to the criteria of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Federalist framers of the Constitution understood that it was vital to endow the new government they created with broad powers, but they recognized that this grant itself posed great danger.
"Our first assignment was to determine whether the Framers set up the American government based on the idea that man was essentially bad or that man was essentially good," Dinh said.
They also highlight the wisdom of the constitutional framers in establishing the institution, ignoring that the Electoral College of today bears little resemblance to the body crafted over two centuries ago.
She repeatedly cited the vision of the Constitution's framers who feared a president might try to assume the powers of a monarch and allow foreign influence to corrupt the American government.
But they didn't make that clear, and by the time the first vacancy occurred when William Henry Harrison died a month into his term in 1841, all the framers were dead.
The weight of historical evidence shows that the framers meant the emoluments clauses to act as a broader check on influence-peddling that could influence a president's decisions, the judge said.
Impeachment traces its origins to monarchical England, but the framers of the Constitution confined its use on presidents to rare occasions, when their actions corrupted the public interest for personal ones.
It was like our MVP would be, we just have the website, and we'd actually just work with local framers and fulfill it, and it would all be behind the scenes.
"The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal," Francisco wrote in one recent court filing.
This vacancy on the court created by the Kennedy retirement represents an opportunity to return to the vision upon which the framers of the Constitution created the judiciary in the first place.
There should be little doubt that the Framers believed that some conduct warrants the removal of the president by the Senate, because it was both selfish and contrary to the national interest.
The framers of the Constitution rather sharply circumscribed the president's authority to make and repeal legislation, making it in many respects a weaker office than the prime ministerships of more majoritarian countries.
If the Framers had wanted to design a central government with the aim of exploiting the poor for their own advantage, they would have found no shortage of models around the globe.
Indeed, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution included the Commerce Clause in the Constitution partly to empower the federal government to stop the states from imposing protectionist policies that strangle interstate commerce.
Likewise, while the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was not defined in the Constitution, this term reflects the Framers' preoccupation with abuses of the public trust that could harm the national interest.
Kagan leavens her opinions with colloquial turns ("boatload"; "chutzpah"; "these are not your grandfather's—let alone the Framers'—gerrymanders"; a citation of Dr. Seuss) without sacrificing the requisite meticulousness of legal analysis.
"The Constitution gives the president what the framers saw as the traditional means of ensuring accountability: the power to oversee executive officers through removal," Francisco said in the case, the newspaper reported.
Compromise created our great nation, let's use it now in the same spirit as the Framers, who are the example by which all politicians should be measured and political pundits should remember.
Donald Trump's presidency, as always, has clarified the true motivations of conservative America, which no longer pretends to care about the niceties of the Framers' views on the English Bill of Rights.
Federalism is a long-standing American principle that began with the Framers: Despite their disagreements, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson all believed states should retain sovereignty and serve as laboratories for new ideas.
They painted Clinton as the victim of a partisan quest to exploit an offense—covering up an affair—that was not on the scale of abuse that the Framers had in mind.
To the Framers, its main purpose actually was to increase, not decrease, the role of the people in the selection of the president, while dampening the chances of a demagogue seizing power.
However, I think it was widely understood when the framers created a court in a system with a constitution that that court would have the power to invalidate legislation it deemed unlawful.
Like many conservative intellectuals, Hawley believes that the Progressive Era amounted to a disastrous wrong turn, when the administrative apparatus that Roosevelt created superseded the modest, decentralized government envisaged by the Framers.
The 14th Amendment's framers unquestionably approved measures like these, passing laws during the same era, like the Freedmen's Bureau Act, to give black Americans government assistance with food, clothing, jobs and education.
And that the cumbersome checks-and-balances system the framers set up would finally pay off and prove its worth as a tool to limit the power of a would-be demagogue.
Our top legal reporter looked at the kinds of acts the framers thought could justify removal from office, and how they played out in the impeachments of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
But when that system was created (under U.S. leadership) in 1947, its framers realized that it had to have a bit of flexibility, a few escape valves to let off political pressure.
However, even if the framers of the Constitution saw war as a last resort, and the decision was to be made by Congress rather than presidents, seldom has this been the case.
Popular selection of electors, the use of the winner-take-all method to award electoral votes, and elector loyalty were not prescribed by the Framers, but have become commonplace in presidential elections.
Since Woodrow Wilson's critique of the framers' work, progressive legal theory has generally denied that the meaning of the original Constitution, as endorsed by generational assent, wields authority because it is customary.
That signal is supported by six centuries of history leading up to the framers' choice to add this duty in the Constitution, which supplies evidence about the scope of executive removal authority.
The country's framers obviously could not have known that they were creating a system that would give Donald Trump's party an unfair advantage over Hillary Clinton's party more than two centuries later.
But Mr. Cipollone belittled the weight of the allegations, suggesting the Constitution's framers had in mind something more consequential when they created the impeachment clause than what the House managers had presented.
Legal scholars have long insisted the framers of the Constitution provided impeachment as a remedy for "other high crimes and misdemeanors," a particularly broad definition that doesn't mean simply specific criminal acts.
While the framers of the Constitution might never have imagined an impeachment battle waged 280 characters at a time, they did essentially foresee a showdown over foreign influence on an American president.
The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by conservative students and professors, some of whom believed in originialism, a philosophy tied to the framers view of the Constitution in the 18th century.
Nor did the framers' intent compel this view," Charles Fried, a Harvard professor and Reagan's solicitor general, wrote in his 1991 memoir "Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution — a Firsthand Account.
As an Antonin Scalia-style originalist, Judge Gorsuch presumably would find constitutional only those rights actually addressed in the Constitution or determined to be in the framers' minds when they wrote it.
In The Federalist No. 70, he wrote that the framers, to encourage "decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch," entrusted the executive power in a unified branch headed by a single person, the president.
The Framers had firsthand experience with the types of abuses and offenses committed by leaders who were not accountable to them and detailed many of those wrongs in the Declaration of Independence.
First, while the framers of the Constitution wanted to provide a way to remove Presidents, they deliberately made it hard to do so because they wanted impeachment to be a rare occasion.
There are those who argue that the framers' punt on slavery was worth it; that the republic known as the United States of America would probably not have been formed if they hadn't.
By nominating a jurist with the tradition of Scalier or Thomas, Trump can insure the court, the court majority for another generational, adheres to the proper Article three role that are framers intended.
Professional framers helped inform things like the 16x9 aspect ratio and the colors and textures of the digital mattes, which use a slight shadow at the edge to create the illusion of depth.
Such decisions arose from Scalia's brand of "originalism" that looked to what the Constitution's framers envisioned, for example, in the right to jury trial and a defendant's opportunity to confront witnesses against him.
"The Framers recognized that in removing a sitting President, we would be acting against not only the officeholder, but also the voters who entrusted him with that position," Collins said in her statement.
They also claimed the Framers intended impeachment to encompass a wide spectrum of misconduct and the Constitution's reference to "high crimes and misdemeanors" applies broadly to injuries done to society by public officeholders.
On the brand's Instagram account, pictures of smoothies, avocado on toast, and salads rendered in high contrast nestle next to images of happy customers (known as "Framers") beaming their way through grueling workouts.
That the court has never arrived at one, Mr Clement said, is not for lack of judicial imagination, but because the framers entrusted districting to state legislatures, with Congress playing a supervisory role.
"The institutional stalwart inside me says no way, but, you know, we're living in a different world, literally, than the Framers ever envisioned and maybe we need to think about it," he said.
Congressmen and presidents alike have confronted problems the framers could never have foreseen—from regulating corporations with annual revenues larger than the GDP of most countries to winning a global war against fascism.
" President Truman's declaration was simply mirroring the language the Framers had already used in the Declaration of Independence: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
But the Supreme Court is frequently called on to conjure what Madison and the other framers of the Constitution might have made of our world, one very different from the one they knew.
The Framers of the Constitution did not want to have the republic governed by a president whose domestic and international capability, influence and concentration would be dimmed by the darkness of alleged criminality.
They, through the purity of the unceasing human spirit, forced 27 amendments to the Constitution that have guaranteed fundamental rights to all people...finally doing what the framers should have done in 1787.
The idea that the Constitution was really about money is not new, although it has lost favor in recent decades to "ideological" interpretations that focus on the Framers' moral worldview and political goals.
Congress is the Article 1 branch because the framers wanted the people's elected legislative body to be "first among equals" with a primacy over the President whose powers are described in Article 2.
To see why, it is important to appreciate both how the framers viewed the pardon power as well as the ways in which subsequent changes to the Constitution have affected that original understanding.
"Anything in the Federalist Papers — in this case Hamilton — is as close to the thinking of the framers of the Constitution as we've got," added Don Ritchie, the historian emeritus of the Senate.
The House is the most democratically representative department of the federal government, and the framers reasonably could have concluded that no impeachment investigation would occur unless a majority of the House membership approved.
"The only remaining question is whether the members of the Senate will accept and carry out the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our Constitution and their constitutional Oaths," it adds.
The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances.
At one point, appearing to get choked up, he invoked the framers of the Constitution and offered his generous thanks to senators who had not been as attentive as they might have been.
That's why Washington, Madison and the other Framers intentionally designed a governing system that required consensus-building for an increasingly large and diverse country — it's one of the great achievements in human history.
The Framers of our legal system wisely placed all legislative power in the hands of officials who remain electorally accountable to the people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
"The framers' Constitution allowed states to bar women (and many men) from voting and holding office — and originalism ties its meaning now to that world," Reva Siegel, also a Yale law professor, says.
In addition to distinguishing Boumediene as inapplicable, the brief argues that Mr. Thuraissigiam's claim must fail because the Constitution's framers would not have applied the Suspension Clause to immigrants seeking relief from deportation.
To many liberals, however, his advocacy of "originalism" — limiting constitutional values to those clearly articulated by the framers — threatened to curtail hard-won rights for broad swaths of America, notably minorities and women.
After James Madison made comments that were critical of impeachment for mere "maladministration," the Framers added "other high crimes and misdemeanors" to distinguish between unpopular policy choices and conduct warranting removal from office.
Sitting at a long wooden desk, the four beckoned their audiences back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the roots of why the framers even wrote an impeachment provision into the Constitution.
By rendering such "Bribery" impeachable, the Framers sought to ensure that the Nation could expel a leader who would sell out the interests of "We the People" to achieve his own personal gain.
Though the historical resonance of such views helped to saddle the reformers with a reputation as anti-party neo-Progressives, in fact the framers of McGovern-Fraser envisioned highly active and institutionalized political parties.
The clear allocation to the Senate of the power to try presidential impeachments would be basically pointless if, as in the days of the Framers, another election were always potentially out in the offing.
As the legal scholars Jean Galbraith and Michel Paradis wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week: When draft­ing the Con­sti­tution's Im­peach­ment Clause, the Framers had a spe­cific his­tor­i­cal episode in mind.
If the framers meant to include self-defence, it violates the maxim of quantity by saying both too little (it did not mention self-defence) and too much (by not being needed at all).
The Framers of the Constitution were deeply concerned about corruption and included these prohibitions to ensure that the president would not have divided loyalties, or be unduly influenced by the prospect of personal gain.
When arguing over "how democratic" the parties' nominating processes are, and should be, it is always instructive to remember that the Framers feared direct democracy every bit as much as they did monarchical tyranny.
Where the Framers wanted Congress to take ownership of any wars, courts now allow members to delegate that authority to presidents and sit as pedestrians watching whether wars prove to be popular or problematic.
Our framers understood this benefit and recognized that publicly sharing inventions with a central patent office incentivizes America's innovative and entrepreneurial spirit - as long as we protect the right of the inventor to benefit.
As reflected in the requirement of a two-thirds majority to convict, the Framers viewed removal as an extreme measure, a last resort constitutional check on abuse of power by a president between elections.
Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution realized that although maple syrup could be produced in Georgia and peaches could be grown in Vermont, both Vermonters and Georgians would gain most from specialization and trade.
While all the technology changes happening today may cause people's head to spin, the House has taken a big step in preserving Fourth Amendment rights and the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
The Framers created an independent judiciary as a co-equal branch of government, recognizing that the courts had to be truly distinct from the political branches to play their historic role in protecting liberty.
Even though they could not imagine the dangers of nuclear war, the Framers of the Constitution understood the dangers of tyranny and gave the power to declare war to Congress—not to the President.
"There are so many things wrong with the electoral college, and it's hard to say how it was intended—the framers of the Constitution did not have a coherent idea about that," said Rakove.
More importantly, perhaps, the Framers created an Electoral College, or — at least in theory — a group of well-informed statesmen to act as a rampart between the electorate and the selection of the presidency.
That's why Judge Messitte's ruling is so important: It opens a path to enforcement of the ethics regime that the framers developed as a bulwark against corruption in the highest office in the land.
Scalia defined himself as an originalist: He argued that the Constitution should be read purely in the context of its text and the intentions of the framers, not personal beliefs or modern social conventions.
"The Framers sought to ensure that the executive power would be wielded in a manner that is both decisive and politically accountable," the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in a brief to the court.
" They revealed that during a key debate over import duties on the slave trade, he had persuaded the framers not "to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.
But the legislation caps that price in 2050, in theory allowing companies to pay a high price if they don't meet the 2050 carbon neutrality goal — something framers of the legislation argue is unlikely.
But the legislation caps that price in 2050, in theory allowing companies to pay a high price if they don't meet the 2050 carbon neutrality goal – something framers of the legislation argue is unlikely.
The Framers intended impeachment to encompass a "full spectrum" of presidential misconduct, Garcia said, adding that the Constitution's reference to high crimes and misdemeanors applied broadly to injuries done to society by public officeholders.
For in honoring and defending the Constitution, We keep faith with the Framers to whom we are heir, and Are worthy of the esteem of our countrymen, Now, and in the generations to come.
But he has an obvious conflict of interest when the president's job is at risk, so the framers of the Constitution assigned the role of presiding over presidential impeachment trials to the chief justice.
Senators have the chance to affirm what the framers envisioned and — even if it doesn't change anyone's mind — secure all relevant evidence and make an informed decision to defend the Constitution and the republic.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The framers of the 232-year-old U.S. Constitution played a central role in Wednesday's impeachment hearing as constitutional law professors outlined the case for, and against, ousting Republican President Donald Trump.
The Framers were well aware of the abuse of pardons, particularly in England under King Charles II. In 1678, the Parliament moved to impeach the Earl of Danby, the lord high treasurer of England.
Justice Department lawyers, who have been working for weeks on their answer to the lawsuit, plan to counter that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts and compensation for services.
Once the independent judiciary's power to enforce constitutional limitations is usurped by the very branches policed by those limitations, we risk bringing about the democratic disaster that the framers sought so carefully to avoid.
Constitutional experts said that they were baffled by the argument and that there was a mountain of evidence that the framers intended removal from office to be a punishment for broader abuses of power.
Anticipating the split, Mr. Schiff used the report to lament the disconnect between the parties and warn that it amounted to precisely the kind of intensive polarization that worried the framers of the Constitution.
This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a Constitution including impeachment to protect against and if there's no action, if Congress concludes they're going to give a pass to the president here.
"The Framers did not envision the use of the presidential pardon power to encourage criminal acts at the President's direction," said House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, in a statement.
Marrero said Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from criminal proceedings is counter to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, who rejected having an executive with the limitless power of an absolute monarch.
" Alito acknowledged that the concept "may sound arcane" but went on to explain that it "simply" refers to the decision of the Constitution's framers to bar Congress from "issu[ing] orders directly to the states.
He made only one passing reference to the legal philosophy that animated his father's long career, a belief in the Constitution as the framers originally intended it, including the presence of religion in public life.
"She and her Democratic colleagues are using the impeachment process as a weapon of partisan political battle, rather than as the means to defend the Constitution our Framers meant it to be," the complaint added.
We must recognize this period as the dangerous precedent it is and collectively -- through the legislative branch, judiciary branch and the public -- work to return the executive branch to the limited role the framers intended.
While some constitutional experts insist that firing a special counsel is not a crime, and therefore not impeachable, such a narrow view is contrary to the statements of the Framers and the history of impeachments.
" In light of these concerns, the Framers drafted the Constitution to ensure that "corruption was more effectually guarded against, in the manner this government was constituted, than in any other that had ever been formed.
The framers of our Constitution very explicitly rejected a proposal to include as grounds for impeachment and removal "malpractice or neglect of duty" that is precisely what my hypothetical president could reasonably be charged with.
That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.
If the framers saw anything coming, it was exactly this: a demagogue in the true sense of the term, someone with a privileged background pretending to be a man of the people, channeling their grievances.
Others claim that only those permanently living here and part of the polity are covered, since the framers of the amendment, adopted in 85033, could never have imagined either mass illegal immigration or airborne tourism.
"I can't take seriously the vice president's threat to undo what the founders of the country, the framers of the Constitution intended, which is to have a safeguard against unlawful executive branch action," Wang said.
Brookhiser calls Marshall "the greatest judge in American history" and presents him as the last man of the great founding generation, heroically carrying the ideas and virtues of the framers forward into the nineteenth century.
Our nation revolted in opposition to the tyrannical rule of a king, and while the Framers understood the need for an energetic executive, they took pains to deny the new office of president unchecked power.
The Framers believed that it is a duty of the courts to protect this structure, particularly the separation of powers, if it is threatened by the actions of one or both of the other branches.
Unlike Scalia, "I predict that Garland will never be in the majority in one of those cases — recognizing a bold, new right for criminal defendants based on the original intent of the framers," Lee said.
However, in a literal sense, those electors would be following the original intent of the framers, and view their role as voting for the good of the country and not vote merely along party lines.
This move, which decoupled the interests of a state's senators from the state's legislature, was a fundamental change to the Senate, virtually obliterating the direct link the framers envisioned for the Senate and the states.
One can of course question Scalia's logic — many legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment was deliberately phrased in a vague way in order to protect groups that the framers may not have conceived of.
The Framers of the Constitution strove for an independent judiciary, free of political influence; hence, lifetime appointments for all federal judges, who need not fear being removed or punished by any president for their rulings.
The American framers wrote 'high crimes and misdemeanors' into the U.S. Constitution, he noted, to include noncriminal abuses of power, and since then, federal judges and a U.S. senator have been impeached for noncriminal conduct.
"This is a difficult time for our country but this is precisely the kind of time for which the framers created the Senate," he said on the floor on Wednesday as the articles were delivered.
" There was, however, English common law I ran that idea by Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst, and he generally agreed, but added this about the Framers: "What they did know was English common law.
"The Framers recognized that no single solution would work for all states, and left room for individual states to make decisions about the issue of aid to religion," Philip J. Weiser, Colorado's attorney general argued.
A 1995 Supreme Court decision found that states adding new qualifications for federal candidates "would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union,'" law professor Richard Hasen noted in Politico.
As the political scientists Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte noted in their 1973 book, "Size and Democracy," the framers embraced federalism partly because they thought that states were closer in scale to the classical ideal.
That said, I believe, by implication and past precedent, a full and fair trial in the Senate is what was expected by the Framers of the Constitution and is what should occur in this case.
"The list of impeachable offenses the framers included in the Constitution shows that the essence of an impeachable offense is a president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends," she said.
However, the Barack Obama appointee said completely excusing McGahn from testifying would give Trump or any president monarch-like powers that the framers of the Constitution deliberately sought to disperse in the system they devised.
That is doubly true where a President conspires with a foreign power to manipulate elections to his benefit—conduct that betrays American self-governance and joins the Framers' worst nightmares into a single impeachable offense.
The disparity that separates the U.S. from China and Russia is not the international order of nuclear science, engineering and technology envisioned by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower and the early framers of U.S. nuclear policy.
"The list of impeachable offenses the framers included in the Constitution shows that the essence of an impeachable offense is a president's decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends," Karlan added.
"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers, it was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers," Feldman answered.
Trump also said that he wanted someone who would "interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant it to be," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity to divulge details of the private meeting.
For one thing, if the original meaning of the framers of either the original Constitution or the Reconstruction amendments were taken seriously by today's judges, we would live in a much different and much worse society.
But Trump and his lawyer, Sheri Dillon, made a big to-do at the press conference Wednesday that everyone has expanded the definition of "emoluments" from what the Framers intended and thus doesn't apply to Trump.
During the convention, the framers spent far more of the summer of 1787 debating how the legislature would be apportioned and selected, the role and election of the president, and the treatment and future of slavery.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano: "The president of the United States using foreign governments to influence domestic politics -- that was the fear of the framers when they put that impeachment clause in the Constitution." pic.twitter.
And finally, the Electoral College was just one of the many safeguards the Framers of the Constitution installed to make sure essential individual rights could never be voted away by the tyranny of a simple majority.
The reason for Congress's weakness today is a failure of the courts over many years to carry out a role that the Framers expected them to perform: to keep the elected branches within their assigned responsibilities.
Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, another White House candidate, said he would want someone who echoed Scalia's "originalist" ideology that looks at the U.S. Constitution through the lens of its framers' 18th-century intentions.
The Framers' intellectual guide on this issue was Montesquieu, the French political thinker who inspired their institutional structure of checks and balances, but who influenced them equally with his civic-republican concepts of virtue and corruption.
"That would leave the amendment essentially in a legal limbo that was not foreseen by framers of the Constitution," Robinson Woodward-Burns, an assistant professor of political science at Howard University, told VICE News in February.
"The Framers had their minds trained on a threat to republican self-government that this Court has lost sight of," former Justice John Paul Stevens chided the majority in his dissent from Kennedy's Citizens United opinion.
Unsurprisingly, then, Marshall's opinions relied not only on his own memory of the views of the Constitution's framers, but also on the text and the purpose of the document and on background principles of the law.
"The framers wrote the Constitution to manifest the sovereign power of the United States and the states, including the power to enforce their own criminal laws," argued Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Wall in court papers.
While many of the words of the Constitution remain the same, the way the federal government functions bears almost no resemblance to the carefully crafted system of distinct and coordinate branches set up by the Framers.
The Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department acknowledged in 2000 that nothing in the text of the Constitution or evidence of the framers' intent would preclude a grand jury indictment of a sitting president.
The Framers had firsthand experience with the types of abuses and usurpations committed by political leaders who ruled them but were not accountable to them and detailed many of those wrongs in the Declaration of Independence.
Because the purpose of the Impeachment Clause is to protect 'The People,' not to punish the person, the Framers vested the sole power of impeachment in the institutional embodiment of The People, the House of Representatives.
Most important, Mr. Trump should begin deferring to Congress on domestic policy and instead focus on national security and foreign affairs, where the framers wanted the presidency's structural advantages of unity, speed and energy to shine.
"The Framers deliberately drafted a Constitution that allows the Senate to remove Presidents who, like President Trump, abuse their power to cheat in elections, betray our national security, and ignore checks and balances," the Democrats write.
"By limiting impeachment to cases of 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against 'already known and established law,'" Trump's team wrote in its 85033-page trial brief.
In its report released Saturday, the committee says the Constitution's framers intended impeachment to be invoked for (1) abuse of power, (2) betrayal of the nation through foreign entanglements, and (3) corruption of office and elections.
Trump is likely to become only the third president to be impeached and the first to be impeached over his dealings with a foreign government, one of the things the framers of the Constitution feared most.
The Framers' selection of the chief justice to preside over presidential impeachments achieved, Hamilton believed, "the prudent mean" of combining the highest-ranking judge in the federal judiciary with the upper house of the national legislature.
Their argument is that the framers of the US Constitution believed a president could be removed from office only after being found guilty of a crime — and that neither charge against Trump is an actual crime.
The 52-page report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee argues that the framers of the Constitution intentionally provided a way to remove the occupant of the Oval Office for just such misconduct.
Kalt looked back to James Madison's notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention and found that the framers discussed whether treason ought to be excluded from the president's pardon powers in case the president were a traitor.
"The list of impeachable offenses the Framers included in the Constitution shows that the essence of an impeachable offense is a president&aposs decision to sacrifice the national interest for his own private ends," Karlan added.
Anthony M. Kennedy, the federal judge confirmed to the seat after Judge Bork's defeat, reassured the Senate by rejecting originalism; the Constitution's framers had "made a covenant with the future," he declared at his confirmation hearing.
"A well-regulated militia" — there's no consensus on what this meant 200 years ago, much less now — "being necessary to the security of a free state" — were the framers talking about collective defense or self-defense?
" Alexander Hamilton expressed the aspiration which the framers held for the Senate when he asked in Federalist No. 65, "Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?
Interpreting it requires judgment about what is reasonable -- an inevitably value-laden question -- and such value-laden judgment is necessary whether trying to determine what the framers thought was unreasonable or what is recognized as unreasonable today.
Custom framers, both local and chains, offer a wide variety of materials and in-person expertise which result in one-of-a-kind frames, so why are online framing services able to disrupt the market so significantly?
The root of the problem is the acceptance by the public, media and even other branches of government of the modern-day "imperial presidency," which has grown excessively powerful compared to what the Constitution's framers had envisioned.
Legislators and internationally active framers of distance trade, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, can use this opportunity to pinpoint, develop and scale-up models that reflect transport-cost-sensitive sectors and practices.
"The framers thought that because people would physically vote in the states, they should give that power to the states," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar who testified at impeachment hearings for Trump and President Bill Clinton.
Therefore, the intent of the framers to make change difficult and time consuming is in conflict with progressive desires to remake American society, in their words, even if blessed by only one election and a bare majority.
If members of Congress are willing to place loyalty to their institution over fidelity to their parties, which the framers of the Constitution anticipated, they can begin restoring its status as the first branch of American government.
In his revealing and passionately argued book, he insists that because the framers did not sanction slavery as a matter of principle, the antislavery legacy of the Constitution has been "slighted" and "misconstrued" for over 200 years.
In the weeks ahead, perhaps an originalist legal scholar or two will divine the framers' will to argue that such measures are unconstitutional, and perhaps Trump will direct the Justice Department to challenge them in federal court.
The Framers placed the question of removal before the United States Senate, a body able to rise above the fray to soberly judge the President's conduct or misconduct for what it was—nothing more, and nothing less.
Another reason came from history, Garber said: The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," was used in England before the framers included it in the US Constitution, and it wasn't understood to require a criminal offense for impeachment.
It argues that Scalia's concerns about judicial power proved to be largely unfounded, that he misunderstood the framers' vision of free-exercise protections, and that the ruling has unfairly burdened religious minorities in such cases ever since.
Nye praised the framers of the U.S. Constitution for including language "promoting the progress of science and useful arts," but said countries around the world are forgetting that without science, they cannot compete on the world stage.
" In the United States, the Framers adopted the English standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors," but they warranted a higher standard so that a president would not be forced to serve "at the pleasure of the Senate.
The Framers of the Constitution based their plan on popular sovereignty and political equality, but planned, as well, that popular majority coalitions be divided, frustrated, inchoate, their values and views left to be "refined" by their betters.
"History shows that the Framers understood the Establishment Clause as prohibiting the coercion of religious belief or adherence, but not the acknowledgement of religion in public life," Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall argued in briefs.
Under the president's view, this impeachment inquiry is an illegitimate process even though it is in the Constitution, even though it is something the framers believed was critically important to act as a check on the presidency.
To be sure, the Constitution provides that the House and Senate are the "sole" judges of impeachment and removal, but the same Constitution also requires the legislative branch to apply the criteria set out by the Framers.
To prevent more gun violence, advocates young and old must recognize #10A while exercising their #1A rights, just as #2A proponents have done of late, if they want to win—which is just as the Framers intended.
"History shows that the Framers understood the Establishment Clause as prohibiting the coercion of religious belief or adherence, but not the acknowledgement of religion in public life," Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall argued in briefs.
But, that is not a problem for originalism because while originalists derive the meaning of a clause from the original understanding, they apply it to a world and to facts that the Framers could not have imagined.
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.
Chevron allows agencies to "swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power," he wrote, "and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the constitution of the framers' design".
Is it time to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the concept of Bicameralism, two branches of the legislature "accountable to different constituencies" that "the Framers sought to thwart special interest…or 'fractions'" from perverting "the legislative process"?
The framers enshrined their faith in rights in the Constitution, which, with a few crucial exceptions—protecting the nation from foreign threats, maintaining domestic order, and overseeing vital matters of commerce—kept federal oversight out of Americans' lives.
The Framers of our Constitution intended the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government to be co-equal, thus setting up a delicate system of checks and balances with each branch acting as a counterweight on the other.
To the Editor: Framers of the Constitution feared the direct election of a president: The mob could be swayed to vote for a demagogue who lacked the experience, intellect, temperament, ethics and morality required to preserve the Republic.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, coming on the heels of the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, the framers of Russia's new Constitution prohibited the classification of information about the environment, though that provision has been flouted before.
I believe that when the Constitution was developed, the framers envisioned the separation of powers working, because there would be more members of Congress who would support the Constitution against anyone or any group that might subvert it.
In addition to making the legislative branch the preeminent but co-equal branch, the Framers established the House of Representatives would enjoy a "natural superiority" over the Senate as the first of the two branches of the Congress.
Dershowitz said that Johnson&aposs lead counsel, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, successfully argued that the framers of the US Constitution intended that only "criminal-like conduct" could be considered legitimate grounds for removing a president from office.
If the framers wanted each state's electoral votes to always go to whoever a majority of the voters in a state wanted to be president, why bother to appoint an actual person to perform such an automated task?
Each senator, as a constitutional steward, has the power to ensure that her or his name will be recorded by posterity as one who proved him or herself as equal to the trust expected by the constitutional framers.
He also said that there were some common-law crimes at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and that the framers expected Congress to eventually enact criminal laws that could serve as the basis for impeachments.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the protections of the First Amendment to be a bulwark against the "tyranny of the majority" — a shield to protect those with unpopular views against oppression by a popularly elected majority.
But striking the right balance is precisely the task the Framers assigned to the most democratic and accountable branch of the federal government — and not exclusively to the one person who happens to be occupying the Oval Office.
" Feldman argued that "our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers, and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion that the House of Representatives move to impeach him.
Although the framers of the Constitution viewed the judiciary as "the least dangerous branch" of government, in more recent times it has become the most visible and volatile, undermining our liberties by acting as a group of super legislators.
And in using that term in the Constitution, the Framers were making clear that a president who would engage in the "corrupt exercise of power in exchange for a personal benefit" should not be able to remain in office.
Couple all of this with the newest "deepfake" technologies — enabling the creation of false but lifelike videos showing political opponents in compromising situations — and the framers' worry that democracy will be overcome by deception-induced factions becomes very real.
Congress has finally begun to root out what is working and what isn't; to highlight incompetence and corruption; and to expose what needs to be known today by the American people — just as the framers of our Constitution wanted.
The Senate took seriously the responsibility that the Constitution's framers gave it to review the president's Supreme Court nominees, and to ask whether a nominee can be trusted to treat all people fairly with equal respect under the law.
And we are speaking not of the local television station, which is bad enough, but the nation's dominant social network, creating the kind of monopoly influence over politics that the framers of the Sherman antitrust law were concerned about.
That is why, despite the attacks and efforts to silence me, I will continue to speak up on behalf of the democracy our Framers laid out and the civil liberties of all Americans in this country, including our president.
"The President is very committed to the 'Gorsuch model' and a very disciplined selection process where the nominee has courage and independence of judgment and will interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant it to be," Leo said.
But it is usually legal and for good reason — the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted to strictly limit the ability of government to prevent citizens from speaking or the press from reporting the news.
The fact is there was no possible way for the framers to put down every single right we have—the right to brush your teeth, sure you've got it, but how long do we want this document to be?
The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn't clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected.
David Waldstreicher, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and the author of "Slavery's Constitution," said this approach created ambiguity about the framers' intentions and the constitutionality of both proslavery and antislavery legislation.
" Similarly, Leonard Leo, the president's key adviser on judges, and a top official (on leave) in the conservative Federalist Society, recently said Mr. Trump wanted his nominee to "interpret the Constitution the way the framers meant it to be.
While the Framers did not imagine, let alone discuss, a virtual presence, they did expressly address one of the most important aspects of a court system in a free nation, which as we know it now is public access.
That is not because we think them any less fit for the obligations of citizenship; it is because the Framers believed the presidency and its commander-in-chief powers had to be fortified against the potential of foreign intrigue.
In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch's interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers.
"In short, every time this court has confronted an effort to assign the president's removal authority elsewhere, it has rejected it in closely divided opinions that reflect the Constitution's silence and the Framers' ambivalence on such questions," he wrote.
Indeed, when the Framers tweaked the Constitution, after the disastrous election of 1800 revealed problems with their original mechanism, they made clear in the 12th Amendment that they wanted presidents elected by a majority, not a plurality, of electors.
But it is precisely this wisdom of the Framers — that because republics are fragile, compromise is essential — whose disappearance from our culture and politics is reflected so starkly in the survey numbers and in post-Cold War American culture.
House impeachment manager Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the framers believed there were two ways in which a president could abuse his power:Forbidden acts: Use of official power grossly exceeds constitutional or legal authority.
In fact, it's entirely possible that they could rule that a self-pardon is permissible, and point out that the remedy for abuse of clemency is what the framers of the Constitution intended for any abuse of power: impeachment.
The Democrats trying to lie for political gain and as always, an originalist, a constitutionalist, an appointment such as this to the Supreme Court strengthens the foundation of this country, the original intent of our founders and of our framers.
But the fact is... executive bureaucracies (are permitted) to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.
While it may not always feel true, political scientists broadly agree that presidents have historically been quite responsive to public opinion, perhaps more so than the framers — who saw the office as standing somewhat aloof of mass sentiment — originally intended.
Sony, Canon, and Nikon all seem to have their focus set on the market for high-end full-framers, but with few exceptions, Fujifilm has been steadfast, choosing instead to stick with its line of retro-styled shooters with smaller sensors.
Those who don't understand why the Framers of our Constitution feared a violent and oppressive mass as much as a powerful and oppressive government learned a valuable lesson watching events unfold at UC Berkeley, NYU and other venues around the nation.
The most alarming contemporary feature of the government drafted by the Framers 230 years ago has been the self-imposed impotence of the Congress becoming more and more apparent over the course of every administration in the past 100 years.
If it took the results of the most recent presidential election for you to imagine a selection of angry citizens arm-twisting and threatening presidential electors to get their way, the Framers of our Constitution were way ahead of you.
President Trump's rollout of his ill-conceived executive order on immigration is evidence that the Framers were correct about human nature: Expect all those with power to be tempted to abuse it and those with unchecked power to be tyrannical.
" In specifying that the president shall be removed for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the Framers were plainly concerned, as Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz have put it, about "abuse of power, corruption, and injury to the nation.
As the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 lurched to a close after months of grueling debate, history holds that a woman approached Benjamin Franklin to ask whether the framers of the then-in utero government had birthed a republic or monarchy.
It is incumbent upon Senate Republicans to support a resolution to strike down the declaration, to start back down the road of reclaiming the constitutional authority that the Framers allocated to the legislature as a check on the executive branch.
As Hamilton put it, the framers "merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation," leaving "the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns" up to state and local governments, or safe from public supervision altogether.
The absolute horror of the Las Vegas massacre should finally make it abundantly clear, to any rational person, that the framers of the Constitution did not have the rights of Stephen Paddock in mind when crafting and drafting the Second Amendment.
"It confirms that the Framers' single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," he wrote in his Heller dissent.
Such principles, which were part of the framers' broad conception of due process, have not always been followed when it comes to national security, from the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.
The text of the Constitution supports the key position that the framers viewed democracy as the essential check on use of the pardon power by the president, either directly through an electoral defeat, or indirectly through significant favor of impeachment.
Secondly, only one-third of the Senate is elected every two years, in contrast with the entirety of the House of Representatives, exactly because the Framers did not want public opinion to impact the composition of Congress in the long term.
"Senator Corker may be worried about the lack of adult day care in the White House, but the framers actually assigned those duties to Congress," Mr. Bassin said, invoking the chairman's rejoinder to Mr. Trump's insults on Twitter earlier this month.
When Holmes wrote in the Missouri case that it had cost the framers' successors "much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation," it was his own blood and that of his closest friends that he had in mind.
It was never stronger or more inclusive than after F.D.R. Democracy leaves no one out, and neither did F.D.R. The framers of our Constitution had that in mind, and we'd do well to hold our government to the same standard.
"It simply sends a message that Congress is going to stand up for its institutional prerogatives and abide by the separation-of-powers framework that was carefully worked out by the framers in the Constitution," Ms. Collins said on Monday.
As Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Research Director Robert Maguire tweeted early Wednesday, the abuse of the presidential pardon power the Post describes was explicitly discussed by the Framers of the Constitution as the document was being ratified.
The framers of the Constitution were not infallible, and they were particularly wrong about a core feature of the government they built: They designed the American political system believing it would, uniquely, resist the creation and influence of political parties.
Moreover, Van Buren's 1837 presidential term started half a century after 1787, long after the framers and the meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause's obscure office under the United States-language had largely faded from American political and legal life.
"The framers worried that placing the power to legislate, prosecute, and jail in the hands of the Executive would invite the sort of tyranny they experienced at the hands of a whimsical king," Gorsuch wrote in a dissent from 2015.
"Early American practice reveals that the Framers viewed the Congress not only as a legislative body but also as one charged with constitutional duties of oversight deemed essential to preserving the separation of powers and guarding against tyranny," they wrote.
It is possible that the Framers saw a president as controlling federal prosecutions as head of the executive branch and that a self-pardon would not have been as such a great departure from that inherent power for federal enforcement.
We must vote to reject the House abuse of power, vote to protect our institutions, vote to reject new precedents that would reduce the framers designed to rubble, vote to keep factional fever from boiling over and scorching our republic.

No results under this filter, show 969 sentences.

Copyright © 2024 RandomSentenceGen.com All rights reserved.