there's nothing in the constitution of the constitution that talks about a time limit. if there is no time limit on equality. as we know, the amendment before was the one dealing with congressional pay. there is no time limit on the constitutional process, the 38th state ratified in 2000 with virginia that is what is required in the constitution, so it should be acknowledged as part of the constitution of the united states and we are going to continue to work with of that.im but in the meantime we had other strategies that we are working with. the poll shows they believe it is part of the constitution of the united states and supported it to be part of the constitution of the united states, so we had of the american people on our side. it's an urgent that we get this done and we've been working on the issue ever since he and we've got to complete the job, but it's urgent today because we have runaway courts coming up with insertta interpretations. the dog's decision puts a spotlight on this but there are other decisions eroding the rights. i never thought i would see th

what about the constitution? remember that oath that he just took to become president of the united states? he remarked that he the constitution would be his chart. i would cast every selfish, considerate to the winds. i would weather the storm or sink with the ship. i would not suffer her to be plunged into the breakers by the abolitionists of the north or. the disunion of the south. his plan was to be the president of, the entire country. he wasn't going to side one way or another, but now he's got a practical set of things that got to do. what does this mean? is his adherence to the constitution in terms of actual practical political experience here? because is compromise passes the us congress and within ten weeks millard fillmore has a whole bunch of bills on his desk to do all these things and. he, unlike taylor, who is sort of against this grand compromise, fillmore is in favor of it. he thinks it's an opportunity for the country get past this difficult time and be in a pretty good position to go. so all t

sure it's acknowledged as part of the constitution and becomes part of the constitution. so there's an educational process here. why is that important? we want to make sure that we have our constituencies asking the right questions of our candidates so they'll vote the right way so we can complete the job on the equal rights amendment. and then secondly, the importance of the ratification of the equal rights amendment. because most -- many americans say, you know, it's 2024. do we really need an equal rights amendment in the constitution? the answer is clearly yes. and we need to educate the public as to what's happening in our courts and the needs, the different scrutinies that are available if the equal rights amendment becomes part of our constitution. >> hi, senator cardin. my name is katy, i led the advocacy group, the coalition of advocates in virginia for the virginia ratification. sen. cardin: congratulations. well done. >> thank you. many of us would love to see this important human rights discussion held in the larger understanding of our international reputatio

this was a direct violation of the constitution.iament repealed the law on fundamentals. elections and - the constitution of ukraine, they were in flagrant violation of the law on elections and were falsified in many ways, and where they it was impossible to falsify, they were simply simply prohibited, if they consider crimea to be their territory, but this is 2.5 million inhabitants, if they consider donbass, then it is their territory, yes, they then considered it so, this is 8.5 million inhabitants. to hold repeat elections sounds especially colorful today against the backdrop of ukraine, right? how can i calm everyone down? i would definitely say, within a month there will be a new vote, and i'm running in a new election, who else wants to run ahead? here you need to understand that the source of zelensky’s power, like and poroshenko is, of course, the american embassy in kiev, so such, in principle , statements by zelensky, just when... then he was clearly working out at the us embassy, ​​striving to ensure that external contro

the constitution calls for it. in the history of the country as you've heard here today, what chuck schumer is about to do has never happened. in a town that says things are unprecedented all the time, this actually is unprecedented. the idea that you would dismiss or table something that is part of our duties when we raise our right hand and take this office, something we are supposed to do, chuck schumer is willing to throw all of that away because he's afraid for a couple of news cycles. o and we hear a lot about the threats to democracy. there's one party in the country trying to throw a political rival of theow ballot, throw him in jail for the rest of his life, destroy the senate and end impeachment forever. that is what their game plan is. i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is our job regardless of how you're going to vote because 200 years from now, people will look back, senators we don't know their names, will look back at what happened to the next seven days and it will set th

sense than the federal constitution which is derived from the state constitutions. that constitution making electrified the world. all of the states in 76 and 77 created new government it's written constitutions, which set the model for making for the rest of 200 years. over 200 years. so when they thought about democracy, they thought of it as part of a balance government ruled by the people and they should participate in the government, but they aren't the whole government. so you have the house representatives which represents the people. then you have senate which were kind of version of of the house of lords and a republican version which are designed to collect the wise and wise people of the community to to to be a second house in the legislature. and then you have an executive which represents a kind of monarchical this notion of balance government goes back to the ancient greeks ruled by one to the aristocracy. and then thirdly by the by the people. so that's how they thought of democracy and none of the greek heroes that recognized had anything good to say

in the printing house this book will be called constitution number one. thick paper, on which five colors were applied with the addition of bronze. there were a lot of variations, this had to be foreseen, because in printing there is embossing , that is, also embossed and in gold. but it was chosen so that our coat of arms, it looked absolutely natural, at that time there were no technologies for transferring color images onto non-absorbent, so to speak, leather materials, an embroidery machine was specially purchased, even leather it was selected and not just smooth leather was used, like a laptop with that slight hairiness effect. it is a reflection of all of ours, path, character, national principles and interests, what we remained faithful to, we decided even on the threshold that we ourselves will determine the external one. defend internal policy, if necessary, one’s integrity and independence, and adhere to democratic principles, where a person remains the highest value of society, the state, this is a monolith that allowed it to survive even in th

now, speaking of the constitution, and constitutional parameters, it is time for us to open the dialogue about reforming our bloated and outdated and antiquated and much abused state constitution. [applause] i appreciate that. i figured you would not upload for the budget. louisiana ranks among the longest of allstate constitutions having -- of all state concentrations having 72,000 words in it. and a less than 50 years the legislature has proposed over 300 amendments of which over 210 have been incorporated into the 1974 constitution should that is six per year -- into the 1974 -- of course francis remembers abraham lincoln. [laughter] one of the greatest legal minds in louisiana's history. wouldn't you agree? he had advised every governor from 1940 until his death in 2005. no person had more influence in hours in writing our current constitution. astoundingly, he could recite the entire state constitution. a friend of mine who was close to him relayed a story to me . he said when they were staying together in new lawrence in 1983 when he was trying a case there. he and mr. gravelle eve

fundamentals in the details of the constitutional negotiations were recorded and recorded.ighly recommend the young people to take a look at the legitimacy of our constitutional negotiations to see what bases we have, in fact , how our constitution was written, considering what it had and how much dignity it had. man was important to him. that is , dignity in the real sense, that is, when he talks about dignity in the two basic laws, then he talks about the right to freedom and choosing a job, which means that in fact , this dignity is not a sign of ignorance, that is, someone who does not have a job and is forced to find another one, or even due to unemployment, he may even steal to fill his stomach this means that we have violated his dignity, i want to say that our constitution, we have such a great treasure that he has paid attention to all the rights of the people, even beyond generations of human rights, western human rights. as someone who has studied public law , i can say this with certainty. they say that we have progressive principles, but in some places they hav

that's why it ended up in the constitution. nothing like that ended up in the constitution for the presidents and that's because one of the chief concerns of the framers was the risk of presidential misconduct. they labored over this. they adopted an impeachment structure that separated removal from office as a political remedy from criminal prosecution. this departed from the british model. that model was you get impeached and criminally convicted in the same proceedings. the framers wanted a political remedy in case a president was engaging in conduct that endangered the nation. he could be removed. he can't be prosecuted while a sitting president. that has been the longstanding justice department position. >> you dispute the proposition that a former president has some form of immunity. but as i understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a form of special protection, namely, that statutes that are applicable to everybody must be interpreted differently when applied to a former president under cert

what would have happened to us if we had not made changes to our constitution in time, had not builthere would have been no state. the year before the elections the country approached the elections in a deplorable state, 40% of industrial production was lost, agriculture was set back decades, the harvesting company is under threat due to fuel shortages, real incomes are falling, unemployment is growing, and this is against the backdrop of riots, crime and corruption . those factories who previously produced rockets were forced to adapt and produce those goods that were primarily needed by people, for example, graters, that is, for many engineers this was a very moral blow, because before that we were just making cartridges, machine guns, here time to do graters, for many it was even a kind of humiliation, but what to do, the whole country was forced to survive, everyone rushed en masse to trade, because in russia food prices were three times higher than ours , just my father, like many other people, they were just transporting food, primarily butter, raw sausages. to russia, just in

yes, please, well, yesterday in the indicated there was no constitutional election deadline, but thests, as biden once said of them, began to seize power, these are ongoing crimes, the end, it will end on may 20, so they began to seize power, that is, further they will govern according to concepts, this is how they have defined it, this is how they will interpret it for us, they are absolutely in favor of the constitution. today he doesn’t doesn’t react in any way ignores her, to put it mildly, to put it mildly, because the same zelensky said that he put it on pause a long time ago, there is no such term at all. v jurisprudence, well, he himself is not a lawyer, but the question is that ukrainian citizens are literate, they read and saw that there should be elections yesterday, and now this power for many citizens who understand, respect, at least their civil right to constitutional rights and freedoms, they also have the right according to the constitution, i, not to carry out obviously criminal orders, it’s written there, obviously criminal orders, you have the right not to carry o

there drafted the state constitution. the language of the declaration flows straight into the massachusetts state constitution. the language of the declaration and constitution were immediately used in massachusetts by abolitionists, free african-americans, living in boston at the time. they put petitions to the assembly to end enslavement. they took the case to the court. the supreme judicial in massachusetts. and by virtue of a judicial decision in 1783 that ruled that enslavement was incompatible with the massachusetts constitution on the grounds of the language in. the constitution that came from the declaration of independence. enslavement was abolished in massachusetts. so that's the second important lesson of the story. the abolitionist movement had to grow greatly in force over time, obviously, before it became what we know of it in the 19th century. but as they say, it quickened in that moment. that is when it came to life. it was born. there had been prior writers and thinkers going as far back as the early 18th

he is under a constitutional obligationhe he is supposed to bfahful to the laws and the constitution and making a mistake is not wt nds you in a criminal prosecution. there has been some talk about the stut issued in this case. i think they areaiy described as statutes engaging in conspiracies to defraud the unedtates with respect to onof the most important functions, namely the certification of the next president. >> i don't want tdiute that particular application of that 371 conspiracyo fraud the united states, but would you not agree that that is a peculiarly open-ended statutory prohibition? that fraud under that provision under like most other fraud provisions doesn'require any impairment oa operty interest? >> it igned to protect the functions of the united states government and it is difficult to think of a more ctil function than the certification of who won the election. >> i'm not discussing the particular facts of this case but it applies to any fraud that interferes serus with any governmentpetion. >> what the government needs to sh ian intent to impede, interfere, or def

carry out constitutional functions. bribery is in the impeachment clause so it falls outside of anhing that could be viewed as inherent in the need of article o function. >> do you think the premise of that olc opinion washa bribery was simply not official or is e emise that the bribery was official and still the president could be prosecuted for? >> i think bribery is a kind of brid that illustrates the abuse of public office for private gain that we think our things that should bnoheld to be immune. the public officl nnot extract the bribe without the official pow toffer as quid or pro. i guess the quo actually. ia crime that can only be committed by public official who misuse their power. it is one of the things th w most mistrusted. many of the acts charged in this indictment or that would violate criminal law invol t misuse of official power for private gain. >> so if youerto say what the line is in this category, like when its at the statute should be understood as precluding presidential prosutn and when it is th

doctor, help me, one principle 30 of the constitution, one principle 43 of the constitution, if i am of these three principles i want to ask if the number of our current students is high and it should be reduced, he will say no , you are making a mistake, manage, lead, why, look at the key word in these decrees, which is in principle 43 of the constitution , is the use of science and technology and the training of skilled people in proportion to the need. we discuss economic development and progress as an expert. one of the most important and real concerns of the supreme leader of the revolution is the economic field. yes , we have a problem in the economic field, so now the question of the doctor is, let 's look at the economic field. let's see that we need words in the field of economy we just need a new word. let's develop graduate education, the new ideas mentioned above , but also find a solution for our economy, because here he says that education is needed for the development and progress of the economy, dear miri tahir, in article 30 of the constitution, they say that if the

americans' constitutional rights are preserved in the constitution. this amendment undermines our security by giving americans constitutional rights here in the united states to foreign adversaries. vote no on the biggs amendment. vote no on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: this amendment is about reporting requirements. on the point of the warrant, after the rampant abuses by the federal government, it's clear we should have a warrant requirement under 702 to protect americans from the we'ring of incidental communication collected en masse under a broad grain of power to target foreign entities. that's the truth. this is the f.b.i. that targeted catholics and put pro-life progressive activists in jailened a targeted president trump. the opponents gave up the game and said openly the need to target u.s. persons right here on the floor. the only thing that makes this warrantless collection of millions of americans international communications lawful, quote, unquote, is

and he added, and the constitution is maybe the first. the founding document that incorporates improvization. so you distinguish brain between constitutional ideas and the messy messiness of politics. one could argue that the to those ideals are what anchor and allow messy politics. and when you need to do something fundamental. constitution actually incorporates a mechanism in article five for making a change to the laws, the land so. so i think it's fair to say that the part of the genius of the founding document is to is to do justice to the need for for both ordinary change new policy is getting out on the streets, electing new people throwing the bums out, protesting but also opportunities for big change. a rewriting and it's made very by by the constitution and so maybe we're maybe have actually good institutions and the. is developing the character that enables us to take advantage of those institution. and i mean i do think there's a cycle and rhythm to reform in the american history. and i i'm very taken with brian's formulation

the representative forum is taking place in the year of the thirtieth anniversary of the constitution of belarus. president alexander lukashenko sent greetings to the participants. in an era of global challenges and changes, the fundamental law of our country - the legal foundation for the development of belarusian statehood, guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens. russia and kazakhstan, armenia and azerbaijan, uzbekistan and kyrgyzstan. already in conversation with according to journalists, the deputy chairman of the russian constitutional court, sergei mavrin, said: a serious constitutional reform has taken place in belarus, as evidenced by the emergence of the all-belarus people's assembly, as well as the possibility of a personal constitutional complaint. a serious constitutional reform has taken place in belarus, but at least the emergence of such a new body of the all-belarus people's assembly is quite an interesting phenomenon and non-standard, i would say, it will be interesting how it will turn out. on the sidelines of the forum, participants, and these are also repre

over the interpretation of what the constitution says or does say the constitution was purposefully vague on some areas because they wanted it to be able to go forward they didn't want to be so narrow that as something changes. they got to come back and redo. so so they but they created system where we can add on to it with the amendments. but the basic backbone of the constitution is not changed. i mentioned mental slavery. the only other thing within the constitution, they did talk about ending the slave trade. and 20 years not slavery, but the overseas trade, the middle passage. but even with that folks were still smuggling slaves in through galveston, new orleans. still making a profit from that. so we know the data shows us that the numbers of slaves increased after. 1807 18 you know we now we're dealing with slavery between states all right but nobody's ever discussing should we at least not any kind of public stage they having a little private conversations. but they're not having a public discourse. about slavery even though they talked about this being a country freedom, independ

we should not make our nation less safe by giving constitutional protections to hamas, giving constitutional protections to the communist chinese party? i have been talking to members on the floor they say, hey, this amendment is about protecting americans' data in the united states. it's not. americans' data of the united states is already protected by the constitution. there is nobody on this house floor who would argue that you don't need a warrant to look at americans' yacht in the united states. this amendment -- data in the united states. this amendment, i encourage everyone to read it, applies to the data we collect in spying on hamas, hezbollah, the chinese communist party. to give them a warrant, to give them constitutional protections means that they are opened for business. the day after this passes, and we go blind, the communist chinese party has a complete pass to recruit in the united states students to spy on our industry and our universities. hamas and hezbollah have a complete pass. we will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks within the united state

zelenskyy, however, proposes to vote with anti-constitutional norms.the situation at the front is difficult, and we can assume that it really will not be comfortable for many, but what was promised at the beginning, when this bill was only at the beginning of the review, and what zelenskyy is proposing now, the fact that the deputies are trying to distance themselves from him in every possible way, this indicates that, well , at the moment, there is not a single person in this country who is ready to take responsibility for him . well, this, this is the consequences of a fairly long-term destruction of the constitutional field. when now, the president is putting pressure on the parliament in order to vote norms, a law that contradicts the constitution, well , it looks a little strange, and it means that for the western partners it is a very clear signal. if you continue your tenure in office in violation of the constitution, if you put pressure on the parliament in a parliamentary-presidential republic, where is the primacy of the parliament. important

q3 : we have a constitution, mr.tor, help me, one principle 30 of the constitution, one principle 43 of the constitution, if i ask these 3 principles, are the number of our current students high and should be reduced, it will say no, you are wrong, manage, lead, why see in these decrees, the key word in the 43rd constitution is the use of science and technology and the education of people. maher, regarding the need for economic development and progress . should we accept students or not, by the way, let's see that in the field of economics, we need a new word, we need a new word , we need a new word, we need to develop the graduate education , new ideas, but also to find a solution for our economy. why? because he is saying here that education is needed for the development and progress of the economy, dear, in article 30 of the constitution, they say that if the budget of the ministry of science does not provide enough financial support for all students, in fact , that amount should be enough for students. this princ

that is why it ended up in the constitution. nothing like that ended up in president anth is because one of the chicerns of the framerwathe risk of presidential misconduct. they labored over this. ey adopted an impeachment structure that separated removal from office as a political remedy from criminal prosecution. this departefr the british model. the brith del was you get impeached and criminally prosecut a convicted in the same proceeding. amers did not want that. they wanted aolitical remedy in case a president was engi in conduct that endangered the nation. he could be removed. he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president. that has been a long-standing e dertment position. >> you dispute propositions that a former president has some rm of immunity, but as i understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a form of special protection, namely that stateshat are alkaline -- plable to everybody must be interpreted differently under some circstces when applied to a former president. isn't that true? >> it

you can see in the constitution that the provisions of the constitution must be used. what are we , as a government, we have 3 principles of the constitution, mr. doctor, help me, one of the 30th principles of the constitution, one of the 43rd principles of the constitution, if i ask about these 3 principles, mr. the number of our current students is high and it should be reduced. this will mean that no , you are making a mistake. manage, lead. why, look at the key words in these decrees, which are in principle 43 of the constitution , the use of science and technology and the training of skilled people in proportion to the need for development and we discuss economic progress we examine one of the most important and real concerns of the supreme leader of the revolution in the area. economics, yes, and in the field of economics, we have a problem, so now the question of the doctor , let's look at the field of economics, the difference between the education of unemployed students and not accept them, or by the way , we need a new word in the field of economics. we need

of the principle of the 26th of the constitution .s is the result of your research or editing, maybe by a week . yes, this is possible. for example , special rights, for example, what do i know ? do we have privacy? there should be a constitution in which we specify respect for privacy, and by the way , our fundamental singer recorded and recorded the constitutional negotiations. take a look at us and see what bases we have in fact , how our constitution was written, considering what things it had and how much human dignity was important to it, that is , dignity in the true sense, that is, when it talks about dignity in the two constitutions, then it comes to the right to freedom and choosing a job speaks, in fact , this dignity is not a sign of dignity, that is, someone who has a job he doesn't have it, and he has to work for someone else , or even because of unemployment, he may even steal. i say this emphatically, maybe our constitution will be explained and explained to our people one day. it causes a lot of growth and they say th

zorkin referred to the irrevocable ruling of the constitutional court of 2009. then the constitutionalgime has developed in russia, a constitutional-legal regime, within the framework of which citizens of the russian federation received the right not be sentenced to death. please tell me what to do in these cases in order to introduce the death penalty now. but listen, the death penalty is a tough instrument, that’s good. that now we have putin as the leader of russia and for him the life of each of our fellow citizens is priceless, for putin our historical experience, his professional past in the kgb is a powerful inoculation against cruelty, but after putin there will be another, who knows how much that other will change the country , how to put it this way, a humanitarian atmosphere, because it’s a fact that the personality at the very top has always colored us. the death penalty allowed us to expand the existing articles of punishment, up to the highest exceptional measure. now we have a constitutional-legal regime where the return of the death penalty is practically impossible, ne

the constitution calls for it. in the history of the country what chuck schumer is about to do has never happened in the town that he says things are unprecedented all the time this actually is unprecedented. it is part of our duties when we raise our right hand and take the office, something we are supposed to do. chuck schumer is willing to throw all of that away because he's afraid of a couple of news cycles. and we hear a lot about threats to democracy. there's one party in the country trying to throw a political rival of the ballot for the rest of his life in the filibuster, destroyed the senate and and impeachment forever. that is what their game plan is and so i would simply ask, even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is our job. regardless of how you're going to vote, because 200 years from now, people will look back, senators we don't know their names, they will look back at what happened the next seven days and it will set the course for the rest of american history because there is no go

he is under a constitutional obligation where he is supposed to be faithful to the laws and the constitution and making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution. there has been some talk about the statutes issued in this case. i think they are fairly described as statutes engaging in conspiracies to defraud the united states with respect to one of the most important functions, namely the certification of the next president. >> i don't want to dispute that particular application of that 371 conspiracy to defraud the united states, but would you not agree that that is a peculiarly open-ended statutory prohibition? that fraud under that provision under like most other fraud provisions doesn't require any impairment of a property interest? >> it is designed to protect the functions of the united states government and it is difficult to think of a more critical function than the certification of who won the election. >> i'm not discussing the particular facts of this case but it applies to any fraud that interferes seriously with any government operation. >> what the government n

that's why it ended up in the constitution. nothing like that ended up in the constitution for the presidents, and that's because one of the chief concerns of the framers was the risk of presidential misconduct. they labored over this. they adopted an impeachment structure that separated removal from office as a political remedy from criminal prosecution. this departed from the british model. the british model was you get impeached and criminally prosecuted and convicted in the same proceeding. the framers did not want that. they wanted a political remedy in case a president was engaging in conduct that endangered the nation. he could be removed. he can't be prosecuted while he's a sitting president. that's been the long-standing justice department position. >> mr. dreeben, you dispute the proposition that a former president has some form of immunity. but as i understand your argument, you do recognize that a former president has a form of special protection, namely that statutes that are applicable to everybody must be interpr

we followed the constitution. my question for my colleagues here, is there even one democrat who cares about the institution of the senate, who cares about the constitution, who cares about democracy? democrats love to pound their chest and say they are defending democracy while gauging in a relentless -- engaging in a relentless assault on democracy. i have a resolution that would appoint an people committee to hear the trial. so the trial doesn't have to be on the senate floor. that is typically done for presidents. instead the people committee could hear the evidence which the senate has done over and over again. democrats who say we have other things to focus on, fisa and other matters, did -- it would delay nothing on the senate floor to follow our constitution and have an people committee but it would avoid destroying the impeachment power of the senate and destroying the constitution and it would also give the american people a chance to hear the evidence and to -- to hear the presentation of the house mana

, changes and the role of constitutional courts in maintaining constitutional law and order. simple for now canadians' expenses are increasing, while local officials' incomes are increasing. thousands of people protested in canada over an increase in the carbon tax by 23%. protesters. outraged by the increase in the salaries of deputies, all members of parliament received an increase of up to 17 thousand dollars. protesters say parliamentarians should provide benefits, not raise taxes and their own earnings. in the literal sense , german law enforcement officers were left without pants from the costs of ukraine. in the bavarian police they complain about the lack of uniforms, they even made a video with scantily clad employees. police say new trousers, jackets and hats are needed. to wait several months , the bavarian ministry of internal affairs explains the problem with supply disruptions as a result of the conflict in ukraine. the united states has established secret military bases on the territory of guana esquibo. the president of venezuela stated this on a local tv chan

you said unless there's a serious constitutional question well, it's it's a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president's official acts. so wouldn't you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president even under your formulation, unless congress had spoken i don't think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president. problem is the vague stat obstruction in 3371 conspiracy for all the the united states can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically, with an a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president well let me try to batch. >> that's what we're talking about historically is the risk that and going forward the rest. so you can take all of that. >> i think that the question about the risk is very serious and obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate 40 executive branch. our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the

, to the original understand the constitution of the time it was ratified. and to the explicit position of the biden department of justice has argued before the supreme court of the united states. the majority leader's position is asking members of this senate to vote on political expediency to avoid listening to arguments the only rational way to resolve this question is to actually debate it to consider the constitution and consider the law. >> the senator will recognize the senate is in a non- debatable position at the center has a right to offer his point of order. or his emotion but we are and eight non- debatable position because my motion is to change that. so that we can actually debate the law senators can't with the constitution and law says i therefore move the senate proceed to close session to g allow for deliberation on the question as required by impeachment rule 24. >> madam president for. >> majority leader progress in our previous consent request we gavet your side a chance for debates in public where it should be. your side objected. we ar

now, it is the constitutional duty of the u.s. senate to conduct an impeachment trial to determine if secretary mayorkas should be removed from office based on those articles of impeachment. i want to stress again, never in the history of the u.s. senate has such a procedural move been attempted to completely avoid an impeachment trial. senate democrats' efforts to avoid fulfilling their constitutional duty to conduct this trial are just the latest attack by the left against our democratic process and institution. senate democrats want to eliminate the filibuster. they want to radically change the u.s. supreme court. now they want to trash the impeachment process. this is a disturbing series of direct attacks on our democratic institutions. my colleagues and i have called on senate leadership to conduct a thorough trial. i've also personally called on vice president kamala harris, urging her to fulfill her constitutional duty to serve as presiding officer of secretary mayorkas's trial. her appointment as president biden's, quote,