The "law of agency" and "representation".

[mmonk]

The issue of the Bush administration's behavior and breaches of the Constitution and impeachment duties of the Congress reminds me of the law of agency. The House of Representives is supposed to be representatives of the people. In the law of agency, that would make the people the priciples in the law of agency or representation. The law of agency requires material facts be disclosed to the priciples and all actions are due to a duty to the principles ONLY. Clearly, "impeachment is off the table" and having material facts as presented in the articles introduced by Dennis Kucinich taken to committee to die with no impeachment inquiry is a breach of the law of agency. In real estate law, one has a right to fire their representative or agent in such a breach and allowed damages if they have been damaged. We have a right to ask that our party leadership step down and demand we have better representation.

[lonestarnot]

1. K & R

[mmonk]

2. I figure if I have to abide by strict adherence to the law in my work,

why shouldn't they?

[MonkeyFunk]

3. You're claiming it's illegal not to support impeachment?

[mmonk]

4. No. I'm claiming implied duty.

If they are not going to represent the interests of the United States, its people or constitution, they shouldn't be called representatives unless its expressed that they represent entities or others outside of these implied interests. Are you saying its honorable not to support impeachment of government officers with impeachable offenses as a representative in the House of Representatives?

[mmonk]

5. And here is the expressed duty:

For Congress: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.





Article VI clause 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[MonkeyFunk]

6. sorry

nothing in the Oath of office requires anyone to support impeachment.

[mmonk]

7. So what does this mean: to protect and defend the constitution

from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and this part: faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.




What's all this for?


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
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.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. the oath is not legally binding

and everything you posted is open to interpretation. You simply disagree with the right-wingers' interpretation. It doesn't make it illegal.

[mmonk]

10. The whole premise of my post is that representation means

something in US law and that the situation reminds me of it when they are called representatives. We have built a system of laws, but yet we say its ok if people in office engage in high crimes against the constitution and nothing is done to protect us or our constitutional foundations, that no matter the damage, its all just politics. Our constitution is very weak if we are to live with such an interpretation.

[BlooInBloo]

9. "principals".

[mmonk]

11. Thanks for your correction

but I didn't catch it in time to beat the editing period.

[BlooInBloo]

14. ez come, ez go. :)

[Uncle Joe]

12. Good post, mmonk.

Thanks for the thread.:thumbsup:

[mmonk]

13. Thank you for the affirmation of it.