In all defense of mad max, her district was a disaster when she was first elected. Although she has kept the poverty act and racism charges going for decades. Why should she care about district she doesn’t live in?
yes it could. Also if you have had radiation for your prostate, you might bleed in your urinary tract including unable to urinate (blocked by blood clots because the radiation can cause bleeding from the lining of the bladder).
Also you can bleed from the lining of your colon or rectum, because the radiation can effect the parts of the body near the prostate. It can take years to manifest the effects of radiation. Mine took 3, and 4 and half years. i have had bleeding from both areas.
the Senate itself decided this when it dismissed impeachment proceedings against Senator Blount in 1799. It did not publicize its members’ reasoning for their constitutional interpretation, but Justice Story gave some plausible arguments in his Commentaries on the Constitution, § 791.
For one thing, the Constitution’s text says that impeachment may lie against the president, VP, and “all Civil Officers of the United States.” Story points out that the word “officer” or “office” is used in three other places in the Constitution, where context makes plain that a senator (or member of the House) is not an officer:
The president has power to commission “all the officers,” but the president certainly does not have a hand in appointing senators.
The clause “no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office” would be nonsense if service in Congress were an “office under the United States.”
The clause “no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector” would be redundant if service in Congress were an “office of trust or profit under the United States.”
Story also claims that the Convention probably did not consider the possibility of impeaching senators, and he suggests, without elaboration, that it would be bad policy to permit impeachment of federal legislators.
I’d add a structural argument that the Senate got this right in 1799. The Constitution explicitly assigns each House the responsibility of disciplining its own members. Thus, impeachment would be almost duplicative; if the Senate wished to expel a member, it could do so by a 2/3 vote without the Representatives’ help.
The Senate’s precedent is conclusive on this. The Supreme Court has said very clearly that it considers issues of impeachment to be nonjusticiable.
(By the way, only certain states permit state officials to be recalled. I believe it’s fewer than half of them. Impeachment is a more widely available remedy.)