CITIZENS ARREST
My son once studied for the police academy:
I was proud; we have strong justice sense.
He instead enlisted in the army; covert mission:
crashed, lost best friend, suffers PTSD over defense.
He is now my caretaker: disabled septuagenarian:
I too suffer - horrific murderous attack 2005 winter.
Blinded in right eye/42 stab wounds – coma two months:
miraculous recovery though chronic stress no minor splinter.
Perpetrator imprisoned for two decades, five still to go:
although I have forgiven him, relieved I received justice.
I have kept track – on prison ministry, so there is hope:
rehabilitation faith there is no further danger to you/us.
When son sees flagrant road violations, wants to pursue:
if able, I’m sure he would approach/issue citizen’s arrest.
The rules are misdemeanor or felony in your presence:
obviously, there is danger and that is why so stressed.
Our USA President swears fidelity to Constitution:
providing common defense, promoting general welfare.
High Crime committed by Trump in failure to warn:
thousands of citizens died with no notice of health scare.
He was impeached foreign interference request:
yet guilt was not punished by minion sycophants.
A citizens’ arrest should be made by Obama,
Bush, Clinton, Carter – contemporary presidents.
Lawsuit should be filed on behalf of USA by ACLU:
medical/unemployment/expenses – pain/suffering/loss:
Plaintiffs: men/women/children/seniors/minorities/me/you:
Karma assuredly he will reap determined by Divine Boss.###
ARC – Citizens’ Arrest © 9/19/20
In the United States a private person may arrest another without a warrant, for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted may vary by state.
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Citizen's_arrest
…
United States[edit]
In the United States a private person may arrest another without a warrant, for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted may vary by state.[76]
Common law[edit]
Most states have codified the common law rule that a warrantless arrest may be made by a private person for a felony, misdemeanor or "breach of peace".[77]"Breach of peace" covers a multitude of violations in which the Supreme Court has even included a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. The term historically included theft, "nightwalking", prostitution, and playing card and dice games.[78] Texas courts have defined and interpreted the term “breach of the peace” to mean an act that disturbs or threatens to disturb the tranquility enjoyed by the citizens.[79][80]
State statutes[edit]
Consider, for an example of this codification, California Penal Code section 837:
837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his/her presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
"Public offense" is read similarly as breach of peace in this case and includes felonies, misdemeanors and infractions.[81][82] Note that there is generally no provision for an investigative detention by a private person under the law. With certain exceptions (see below) an arrest must be made. "Holding them until the police get there", is simply a form of arrest. The officer is accepting the arrest and processing the prisoner on behalf of the private person.[83]
In the case of felonies, a private person may make an arrest for a felony occurring outside their presence but the rule is that a felony must have, in fact, been committed. For example, consider a suspect that has been seen on surveillance video vandalizing a building to the extent that the arrestor believes it rises to a felony due to the damage. If they find the suspect and make the arrest but it later turns out that it was misdemeanor damage, the arrestor is liable for false arrestbecause a felony had not, in fact, been committed.[citation needed]
Because most states have codified their arrest laws, there are many variations. For example, in Pennsylvania, the courts have been clear that a non-law enforcement officer cannot make an arrest for a "summary offense".[84] In North Carolina, there is no de jure "citizens' arrest". Although it is essentially the same, North Carolina law refers to it as a "detention".[85]
Other states seem to allow only arrests in cases of felonies but court decisions have ruled more broadly. For example, in Virginia, the statute appears to only permit warrantless arrests by officers listed in the Code.[86] However Virginia courts have upheld warrantless arrests by non-law enforcement personnel for breach of the peace misdemeanors.[87] Other non-police persons are granted arrest authority by statute, in the case of those who are state certified armed security officers: "A registered armed security officer of a private security services business while at a location which the business is contracted to protect shall have the power to effect an arrest for an offense occurring (i) in his presence on such premises or (ii) in the presence of a merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant the private security business has contracted to protect" and "For the purposes of § 19.2-74, a registered armed security officer of a private security services business shall be considered an arresting officer."
Use of force[edit]
In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if they reasonably believe that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance.[88][89] In at least one state, a civilian may use reasonable force, including deadly force if reasonable, to prevent an escape from a lawful citizen's arrest.[90][91]
Shopkeeper's (merchant's) privilege[edit]
In some states of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property. The purpose of this detention is to recover the property and make an arrest if the merchant desires.[92]
Differing liability from police[edit]
Private persons are occasionally granted immunity from civil or criminal liability, like the police are, when arresting others.[93] While the powers to arrest are similar, police are entitled to mistake of fact in most cases, while civilians can be held to a stricter liability depending on the individual state. Police can also detain anyone upon reasonable suspicion.[94] However, ordinary citizens cannot claim "qualified immunity" to attempt to defend against a civil complaint for false arrest.[95]
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
…
Failure to fulfill this legal duty to report, or impeding someone from doing so is a crimein itself and may be charged as a misdemeanor. If you are convicted of failure to fulfill a legal duty as a mandatory reporter, you can be fined up to $1,000 and/or sentenced to serve up to six months in jail.May 20, 2014
Can You Be Charged for Knowing About a Crime and Not ...
www.wklaw.com › knowing-about-a-crime-and-not-sayin...
Failure to warn is one principle of product liability. When products fail to provide an adequate warning of the dangers associated with its use, this is known as failure to warn. ... Additionally, they must explain all the possible dangers and risks that may be associated with the use of the product.Mar 12, 2020
Failure to Warn Lawsuit - Product Liability Law | LegalMatch
www.legalmatch.com › law-library › article › failure-to-w...
However, from what I can tell, in California at least one could legally make a citizen's arrest on a traffic ticket. California Penal Code Section 837 permits a citizen's arrestfor a public offense committed or attempted in one's presence. ... a citizens arrest is either a misdemeanor or felony.
Can ordinary citizens give out traffic tickets in the same spirit of ...
www.quora.com › Can-ordinary-citizens-give-out-traffic-t..
…
Premise of the State-Created Danger Legal Doctrine
The state-created danger legal doctrine holds that a law enforcement officer can be held liable for injuries or deaths that occur because of a danger that the officer created.
Legal Doctrine of State-Created Danger and Police Liability ...
www.hg.org › legal-articles › legal-doctrine-of-state-creat..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673833/
…
This position paper will show that withholding information from a competent patient is a violation of the doctor's role as a fiduciary and is not ever justified. As a fiduciary, the doctor's relationship with his or her patient must be one of candour since it will be impossible for the patient to trust the doctor without regular candid information regarding the patient's condition and its outcome. Although the use of the therapeutic privilege has been recognized by several courts and is supported by scientific literature, I will explore why withholding information from a competent patient is a violation of the doctor's role as a fiduciary and as such is not legally or ethically defensible.
While some courts have recognized the therapeutic privilege as a way of promoting patient wellbeing and respecting the Hippocratic dictum of “primum non nocere” {or first do no harm}, my position is that this is not ethically justifiable. Since information is a powerful tool for both harm and good, consciously withholding information from competent patients disempowers them and requires greater justification than patient welfare.
Even though there is legal recognition of therapeutic privilege, it is not applicable on ethical grounds. In addition to disrespecting autonomy, withholding information from competent patients does not benefit them in the long run and can actually cause more harm than good. Consequently, a doctor who withholds information from a competent patient unless in the exceptional case of patient waiver violates the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence.
Keywords: Therapeutic privilege, truth telling, justification
…
…
The obligation of physicians to warn third parties of a potential physical threat by a patient is based on common law. Although generally the physician-patient privilege does not permit a physician to share a patient’s confidential information with a third party, many states have carved out an exception to this privilege when the physician has knowledge that a patient threatens foreseeable harm to a third party.
One of the most famous cases that addresses this issue is Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, in which a patient informed his psychotherapist that he intended to kill a woman who was readily identifiable to the psychotherapist. The psychotherapist failed to warn the woman or relatives of the woman, who was subsequently killed by the patient. The court held that the psychotherapist had a duty to protect the non-patient, third party when: (a) the provider has knowledge of a foreseeable harm; and (b) the third party is known or readily identifiable to the provider.
Although many physicians are familiar with this “duty to protect,” the introduction of the HIPAA Privacy Rule has made it more difficult for a physician to understand whether he is able to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, or other persons, when he believes a patient presents a serious danger to himself/herself or others.
With recent incidents like the ones in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., providers across the country are questioning what should be done if they believe a patient poses a threat to others. To assist in the decision-making process, on Jan. 15, 2013, the director of the Office for Civil Rights of HHS issued a letter to the nation’s healthcare providers in which the director emphasized that the privacy rule is intended to protect the privacy of a patient’s health information, but is also balanced to ensure that appropriate uses and disclosures of the information may be made when necessary to treat a patient, to protect the nation’s public health, and for other critical purposes, such as warning or reporting that persons may be at risk of harm because of a patient.
According to the privacy rule, if a healthcare provider believes in good faith that a warning to third parties is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others, the provider, consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct, is free to alert those persons whom the provider believes are reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. In sharing confidential information, a provider is assumed to have a good faith belief based on the provider’s actual knowledge or in reliance on a credible representation by a person with apparent knowledge or authority.
Although the explanation of the privacy rule provided by the director is helpful, providers still need to be aware that state laws and court decisions affect how and when providers may disclose information about a patient they believe to be threat to public safety or themselves. Thus, although the position of the federal government with regard to HIPAA has been clarified, providers should still seek clarification of their obligations under state law.
If you are concerned about how to handle patients in your practice who might pose a threat to themselves or third parties, do not hesitate to contact a local healthcare lawyer for guidance so you can be aware, in advance, of your rights and obligations. Your intervention could save the life of your patient as well as the lives of countless others, even your own.
…
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-26/31-26-3.HTM
…
TITLE 31
Motor and Other Vehicles
CHAPTER 31-26
Accidents and Accident Reports
SECTION 31-26-3
§ 31-26-3. Duty to give information and render aid.
(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the striking of, the injury to, or death of any person or damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall, upon request, give his or her name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle the driver is driving and shall exhibit his or her operator's or chauffeur's license to the person struck, or to the driver or occupant, or to the person attending any vehicle collided with. The driver shall render to any person injured or struck in an accident reasonable assistance, and shall immediately, by the quickest means of communication known to the driver or which should have reasonably been known to the driver to be available in the locality, give notice of the accident to a nearby office of local or state police. In the event the office so notified does not have jurisdiction of the locale of the accident, it shall be the duty of the officer receiving the notice to immediately give notice of the accident to the office having jurisdiction.
(b) The officer receiving the notice set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall, if the circumstances reasonably require, immediately dispatch an ambulance or emergency medical service to the scene of the accident. Any police or fire department responding to a call for emergency medical service or assistance to a person injured in an accident shall continue to the locale of the accident even though it is outside the jurisdiction of the department and shall render any emergency service that is reasonably necessary.
History of Section.
(P.L. 1950, ch. 2595, art. 23, § 3; P.L. 1951, ch. 2826, § 17; G.L. 1956, § 31-26-3; P.L. 1968, ch. 107, § 1; P.L. 1980, ch. 297, § 1.)
…
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=mjlr
…
BAD SAMARITANISM AND THE DUTY TO RENDER AID: A PROPOSAL
Bad Samaritanism' is an age-old problem that never seems to subside. Each year we hear of new variations on a recurring theme: people witness their fellow citizens in serious danger, but refuse to help.2 Some cases of Bad Samaritanism, such as the Kitty Genovese murder3 and the New Bedford, Massachusetts pool table rape,4 have achieved significant notoriety. Many other
The author wishes to thank Stephen Barker and William Pierce for their helpful criti- cisms of earlier versions of the model statute presented in this Note.
1. The term derives its meaning from the Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. See Luke 10:25-37. Professor Feinberg defines the "Bad Samaritan" as:
1. a stranger standing in no "special relationship" to the endangered party
2. who omits to do something-warn of unperceived peril, undertake rescue, seek aid, notify police, protect against further injury, etc.-for the endangered party,
3. which he could have done without unreasonable cost or risk to himself or others,
4. as a result of which the other party suffers harm, or an increased degree of harm,
5. and for these reasons the omitter is "bad" (morally blameworthy).
J. FEINBERG, HARM TO OTHERS 126 (1984).
2. A typical example of such behavior occurred in August of 1984 in the village of
Pinckney, Michigan. A group of young people at a party witnessed two young men sav- agely beat and kick fifty-seven-year-old Arthur Dining and stuff him in the trunk of his car. The two attackers-with several of the partygoers still present-then took Dining's car for a joy ride, stopping twice to beat Dining further, in spite of his pleas for mercy. Finally, after returning to the party for a while with Dining still in the trunk, the two attackers drove to a deserted area, dumped Dining on the side of the road, and burned his car. Dining's body remained undiscovered for several days. "If any one of them had picked up a phone," said Pinckney Police Chief William Smith, "that man might be alive today. But it was the same old thing about not wanting to be involved, not caring enough to call. And as a result, we've got a murder case." Ann Arbor News, Aug. 21, 1984, at Al.
3. In this infamous case, a knife-wielding assailant attacked a young woman named Kitty Genovese three separate times over a period of thirty-five minutes on her own residential street. Thirty-eight of Genovese's neighbors witnessed the attacks, but no one helped her or even called the police. Only after the victim's death did one witness bother to summon the police, who arrived on the scene within two minutes of the call. N.Y.
Times, Mar. 27, 1964, at Al.
4. Attackers repeatedly raped a woman on the pool table of a local tavern in New
Bedford, Massachusetts, while fifteen patrons watched. Not one of these witnesses sum- moned the police during the entire seventy-five minute episode, and some, in fact, cheered the rapists on, encouraging them to continue. NEWSWEEK, Mar. 21, 1983, at 25;
…
The duty to warn arises when a patient has communicated an explicit threat of imminent serious physical harm or death to a clearly identified or identifiable victim or victims, and the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out such a threat.Dec 10, 2018
Mental Health Professionals' Duty to Warn
www.ncsl.org › research › mental-health-professionals-du..
…
www.ncjrs.gov › pdffiles1 › nij
PDF
In fact, as the Commission's report makes clear, crime cannot be ... our efforts to enemies we can see. We must, ... demonstrators; policemen who fail to solve crimes; judges ... invasion by criminals but to the discovery by a new admin- istration ...
…
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule20
…
hl-databases.icrc.org › eng › docs › v1_rul_rule20
Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Practice.
…
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=ils
…
https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/Duty_to_Warn%2C_Duty_to_Protect/
…
A U.S. intelligence agency “that collects or acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed at a person or group of people shall have a duty to warn the intended victim or those responsible for protecting the intended ...Aug 24, 2015
Intelligence Agencies Have a “Duty to Warn” Endangered ...
fas.org › blogs › secrecy › 2015/08 › duty-to-warn
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
…
https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/faqs.asp
…
WARN Advisor
Additional Frequently Asked Questions about WARN
Below are answers to some additional frequently asked questions about WARN that may assist employees in understanding the WARN Act.
Are there penalties to the employer for violating the WARN advance notice requirement?
Yes. An employer that violates the WARN Act notice requirement is liable to each affected employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of violation up to 60 days. The courts are split on how to measure the amount of back pay available to workers. The majority of courts hold that back pay is measured by the number of work days in the violation period. There are some courts, however, that hold that back pay is measured by the number of calendar days in the violation period. Workers or a union may bring suit in Federal court to enforce their rights under WARN. The Department of Labor has no enforcement authority under WARN and does not investigate complaints or bring suits to enforce WARN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
…
United States[edit]
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[4] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of the phrase "levying war":
It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.[5][6]
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[7]
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[8]
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[9]
The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[10]
Andrew Johnson was impeached on February 24, 1868, in the United U.S. House of Representatives on eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors",[11] in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution. (The Senate fell one vote short of conviction.) The House's primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year. Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of Warfrom office and replaced him with John Schofield, but it was unclear if Johnson had violated the act as Stanton was nominated by President Abraham Lincoln and not by Johnson.
During the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1999, White House Counsel Charles Ruff described a "narrow" interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as requiring "a standard that the framers intentionally set at this extraordinarily high level to ensure that only the most serious offenses and in particular those that subverted our system of government would justify overturning a popular election". Writing in 1999, Mark R. Slusar commented that the narrow interpretation seemed to be most common among legal scholars and senators.[12]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to: a b "The Historical Origins of Impeachment". Washington Post.
2. ^ Howell, Thomas Bayly (1816). A complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors: from the earliest period to the year 1783: with notes and other illustrations. 2. London. pp. 1135–1146.
3. ^ Howell, Thomas Bayly (1816). A complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors: from the earliest period to the year 1783: with notes and other illustrations. 14. London. pp. 234–349. hdl:2027/hvd.hxj2en.
4. ^ Roland, Jon (January 19, 1999). "Meaning of High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Constitution Society. Retrieved February 26, 2012.
5. ^ "United States v Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 1, 159 (No 14, 693) (C.C.D. Va 1807)". University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
6. ^ "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment". The Washington Post.
7. ^ Lindorff, Dave; Olshansky, Barbara (2006). The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-312-36016-0. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
8. ^ Judiciary Committee 1974 Nixon Impeachment (September 24, 1998). "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment Part 2, The Historical Origins of Impeachment, The intentions of the framers". Washington Post. Retrieved February 25, 2012.
9. ^ "Special Report: Documents From the Starr Referral". Washingtonpost.com. September 24, 1998. Retrieved February 26, 2012.
10. ^ "Impeachment of federal judges". Ballotpedia. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
11. ^ The Trial of Andrew Jackson. On Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives Archived November 4, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
12. ^ Slusar, Mark R. (Summer 1999). "The Confusion Defined: Questions and Problems of Process in the Aftermath of the Clinton Impeachment". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 49: 872–873
…
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Oath of Office | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library ...
…
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
PreambleArticle IArticle IIArticle IIIArticle IVArticle VArticle VIArticle VIIAmendment IAmendment IIAmendment IIIAmendment IVAmendment VAmendment VIAmendment VIIAmendment VIIIAmendment IXAmendment XAmendment XIAmendment XIIAmendment XIIIAmendment XIVAmendment XVAmendment XVIAmendment XVIIAmendment XVIIIAmendment XIXAmendment XXAmendment XXIAmendment XXIIAmendment XXIIIAmendment XXIVAmendment XXVAmendment XXVIAmendment XXVII
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
…
Coronavirus: How Trump killed tens of thousands of Americans.
slate.com › 2020/08 › trump-coronavirus-deaths-timeline
Aug 9, 2020 - He's personally responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. ... It documents Trump's interference or negligence in every stage of the government's failure: preparation, ... In early January, Trump was warned about a deadly new virus in China. ... 21, the CDC announced the first infection in the United States.
…
Trump's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry alleged that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony.
Accused: Donald Trump, President of the United ...
Cause: Allegations that Trump unlawfully solici...
Impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia
…
time.com › barack-obama-private-citizen-after-white-h...
Dec 23, 2016 - Becoming Citizen Obama: The Outgoing President's Next Job ... He is likely to be even more vocal once he leaves office. ... initiative advocating mentorship for young men of color that became a stand-alone organization.
…
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art ...
history.house.gov › Institution › Origins-Development › I...
###
http://arc-namaste.blogspot.com
posted by R. M. Namaste' at
September 20, 2020
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home