great figures but folks who oppose the constitution. at the ratifying constitution. it is a young marshall baking -- making strong arguments for why we need a stronger government. then we have john marshall serving in congress and being asked to be secretary of state for adams. administration, he plays a key during the adams role in negotiations with france trying to dampen hostility. these negotiations ultimately failed but through this experience, he earns the respect of the american people. then he is called upon by john adams again to become the fourth chief justice of the united states. as we reflect back on his legacy, we can only thank chief justice john marshall for being an important patriot an earlyant statesman, and jewish josh jurist and constitutional thinker in american history. -- early jurist and one of the earliest constitutional thinkers in american history. announcer: you can watch this or other american artifacts programs at c-span.org. we have this day met in executive offices of a capital at tallahassee florida and cast our votes for president o

do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allegiance to the same; do you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you god?wo . >> i will. >> congratulations senator. >> please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allegiance to the same; do you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you god?isff . >> i will. >> congratulations senator. >> you may have but the largest bible and steve daines may have brought the smallest. this is my grandparents and they got married in 19 oh four at 20 years old. >> we did run wit

at first the constitution seem s to be working. in the election of 1788 supporters of the constitution, the federalist, they swept the election. of the 91 members of congress, 44 of them had either been to -- been members of the constitutional convention, and written this constitution, or had provided vital support during the ratification battles at the state level when states had ratified the constitution. of the 91 members of congress, only eight of them had been opponents of the constitution, , as theifederalists federalists called them. the federalists also swept the electoral college, the place where as you know very well the country decides who shall be president. each elector and electoral college got to vote, and unanimously every single one of them cast one of those words -- votes for george washington. george washington became president. john adams won the majority of the second vote so he would be vice president. the bill of rights diffused anti-federalist opposition. anti-federalist with his coalition that had risen qui

of article three of the constitution and the importance of the judiciary in the constitutional system. one aside about marshall is despite opposing views with someone like patrick henry, the firebrand, one of the great voices against the ratification of the constitution at the time one of the most powerful figures he was soinia, powerful he even tried to deny james madison a senate seat and ran james monroe against him in the house. but john marshall is someone who was really easy to get along with. so even despite political disagreements with patrick henry, he would maintain close relations with him. they would be quite tight. we will see this theme as we go through the rest of his career of the ability to hold strong constitutional views but also see the importance of compromise and finding common humanity even with one's adversaries and ultimately on the supreme court, forming unanimity on the legitimacy of the supreme court. that is a bit about marshall's early life and career. let's move to a time when he's finally in the federal government at the beginning of his career as a nat

thomas jefferson proposed the constitution, and who became a strict interpreter of the constitution,because he said the federal government cannot take any powers that are not already outlined in the constitution. hamilton says, oh, no, no, it's in the constitution, i see it here. it's right here in article one section eight where it says, congress can make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry out the constitution. that's kind of a loose reading according to some, but that is what hamilton argues. this is part of what is within the powers of congress. congress agrees, they pass the bank charter in 1791, washington signs it and thomas jefferson resigned to secretary of state. the third piece of alexander's plan had to do with taxes. in 1792, congress passed hamilton's tax plan. it included increased tariffs on foreign goods, so higher than the tariff of 1789. it also included a whiskey tax that would be imposed on whiskey distilled in the united states. hamilton hoped that by dealing with past deaths, by establishing a stable currency through the bank, and by providing

the constitution is the constitution. >> the idea that the constitution should evolve is really inconsistent being the law. the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. the alternative is a law that's forever uncertain, no more stable, no more reliable than popular opinion of the time. opinions change, mores change. the words don't. >> so coming out, so you set it up and you said, you know, between 1803 and 1905 there's not much difference, right, in how we're interpreting and looking at the constitution even though there are big changes in the way the world works, right in you look in the early 1800s, you have just the role of the executive. george washington, for example, is a very different president than, say, teddy roosevelt who comes in the 1900s. very different from what we see today. and so what, you know, you come down on the side of originalism, and explain why that's the way we should be looking at this document. >> well, i think justice kavanaugh captured it. there are times when the constitution has to be updated. we've had 27 amendments. the first 10 were passed in the two

we have a great constitution daily blog which has the constitutional news of the moment. i learned from the podcast. i can't have an informed opinion about any of the stuff that's coming up every day unless i have heard good arguments from both sides. these are technical open questions and not presuming to have an opinion until you have at least taken a moment to listen or google is great and am lucky enough to do the podcast. times and the wall street journal and the washington post and i write for the atlantic and i google around a bit. theink the times and journal and the washington post are doing heroic work in attempting within the limits of all of our filters as citizens to tell the story. i think it's important not to dismiss the work of professional journalists and their efforts to folkstories neutrally as for partisan stuff. it's important -- don't watch tv except c-span. [laughter] one of the takeaways i am having is as teachers, we can control so little of what happens in the world. we are small players and a big game. the one thing we can control is education.

constitution. prof. ubertaccio: alexander hamilton and his allies want to create space within the constitution for presidents to act when the constitution is silent. we refer to that as seizing the silences of the constitution. and this was a deliberative effort to allow presidents to attain and accumulate power within the system. and hamilton and his allies believed it should be the executive's prerogative to act when the constitution was silent, or even against the constitution if the general will demanded it, especially in foreign affairs. seizing the silences of the constitution, as you may recall, will become one of the most dangerous and controversial of presidential actions. one element of article two that is fairly specific, but has resulted in different interpretations, is the state of the union address. this is found in section three of article two. quite simply, "he shall from time to time give to the congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration su

they violated the constitution.eople are violating an unconstitutional process as a result of what the democrats pushed whether legislation, whether lobbying or whether it's rhinos, it doesn't matter. right now the baseline is for our next election all this lawlessness and even though the constitution says the legislator shall direct the legislator now has no power because the state court will decide or a governor will decide or at least other states in wisconsin bureaucrats will decide and they were changing the rules oh covid but nothing to do with covid. this was nancy pelosi's dream to turn the country into california when it comes to voting. the democrats can't lose so they build super majorities and then what do they do? do they play fair? of course not. remember, we can't comply with us unless we want to. we reject our founding and history and a member the 6019 project? anything goes. we are progressives. we are neo- marxists and status or whatever they call themselves or what we call them. this means nothing

article v of the constitution sets out two requirements for amending the constitution, which our constitution has been amended 27 times. a really great start in the 1700s, the beginning, but clearly work needed to be done to include people and fix things that were not even thought of then. for instance, the fact that i am sitting here, a black woman, a descendent of slaves. it was not thought of when that constitution was written. we do need some stipulation that says women exist. they deserve equal footing in the country. and the only way we can get that, in the midst of systemic racism, sexism, charges, whatever, you cannot get anymore systemic than the constitution. that is the playbook. that is what sets the way we live, the rights we have, the responsibilities we have. so, without question, we believe the e.r.a. coalition, that we need to fix the constitution to give women the rights that men have, but more than that now because the recent supreme court decision so that there will be no discrimination based on sex. arethe two requirements passage by congress and that happened in 1972, an

the constitution also gives the senate quote the soul power to try all impeachments.it was decided on this question 1886. president grant secretary of war william bellman raced to the white house to tender his resignation before the house was set to vote on his impeachment. not only did the house move forward at the impeachment but the senate convened across the chamber that would be tried quote as secretary of war notwithstanding his resignation of said office. the language is crystal clear without any ambiguity. the history and precedent is clear the senate has the power to try former officials and the reasons for that are basic common sense. makes no sense whatsoever that if president or any official could or mitt a heinous crime against our country and the congress is impeachment powers and avoid a vote on disqualification by simply resigning or by waiting to commit evidence until the last few weeks of office. the theory that the senate can't try officials would amount to a constitutional get out of free jail card for a president who commits an impeachable offense

do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? the senators: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senators. the vice president: the clerk will read the names of the next pair. the clerk: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. the vice president: please raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you god? the senators: i do. the vice president: congratulations,

constitution. it is now a great pleasure to welcome you to our program tonight about whether or not america should ratify the e.r.a. i want to begin by thanking the generous support of the mcnulty foundation in partnership with the women's leadership of villanova university. this is part of the national constitution center's year-long initiative, celebrating the 100 th year of the 19th amendment. we are so grateful to make it possible. we have an amazing crowd tonight. i know how engaged you are so please put your questions in the q&a box. i will be looking at them as we talk and we will introduce them to our panelists at the right time. now, it is an honor to introduce our dream team of panelists. f.e mansbridge is charles adams emeritus professor of democratic values at harvard university. she is the author of the award-winning "why we lost the e.r.a." which is the definitive book on its subject. i'm sharing with professor mansbridge the fact i have a copy of that book in law school remember itre

constitution to object. the members who stand here today and accept the results of this concentrated, coordinated partisan effort by democrats where every fraudulent vote canceled out the vote of an honest america. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from florida. asmadame speaker, i rise to support the election. honestly tell americans that with pending legislation over allowed tovers not ,bserve and inspect signatures that the laws and constitution of that state were not violated to change voting outcomes? i will wait for a response. >> 25 seconds remaining. >> can you honestly tell americans that with pending supreme court case over legal observers not being able to inspect signatures that the laws and constitution of arizona were not violated to change voting outcomes. i will wait for a response. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madame speaker, i rise in opposition to the objection. >> five minutes. >> today is an important day. in 1862, during the depths of the civil war, president li

all of these matters guaranteed to you by the constitution, a constitution that protects the rights of those who are accused of transgressing society's rules. some of the most basic of those rules are set forth in our constitution, and one of the fundamental pillars of that constitution is the peaceful transition of power, that obligation that all citizens have to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power. it has been honored by generations of americans for 232 years. it has become so commonplace that we often think very little of it. but as president reagan said in his inaugural, that process is a miracle. the allegations that bring you before me involve conduct that allegedly took place on january 6th of this year, as congress was endeavoring to fulfill its constitutional obligation to certify the will of the people and the votes of the electoral college. you are cloaked in a presumption of innocence with respect to these matters, but the allegations set forth in the complaint relate to conduct that was antithreatical to these constitutional values, conduct that involved a riot, a mo

so again, by constitutional text, president and common basic sense, it is clearly and certainly constitutional to hold a trial for a former official. former president trump committed in the view of many including myself the gravest offense ever committed by a president of the united states. the senate will conduct the trial of the former president and senators will render judgment on his conduct. therefore, the point of order is cofounded and in any case premature. it senators want this issue debated, it can't and will be argued during the trial. therefore, i moved to table the point of order, and i ask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> in this note the yeas are 55 and the nays are 45. the motion to table is agreed to. the point of order is not sustained. majority leader. >> mr.r. president, i haven resolution to organize the pretria

do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? the senators: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senators. the vice president: the clerk will read the names of the next pair. the clerk: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. the vice president: please raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help you god? the senators: i do. the vice president: congratulations,

of the united states. >> the constitution of the united states and the constitution of this state. >constitution of this state. >> and that i will discharge the duties of my office. >> and that i will discharge the duties of my office. >> with fidelity. >> with fidelity. >> congratulations. [applaus [applause] >> will you raise your right hand? i, state your name. >> i sean, david reyes. >> having been elected to the office of attorney general. >> having been elected to the office of attorney general. >> do solemnly swear, that i will support, obey and defend. >> that i will support obey and defend. >> the constitution of the united states. >> the constitution of the united states. >> and the constitution of this state. >> and the constitution of this state. >> and that i will discharge the duties of my office. >> and that i will discharge the duties of my office. >> with fidelity. >> with fidelity. >> congratulations. [applause] >> thank you. >> i, state your name. >> i, deirdre m henderson. >> having been elected to the office of lt. governor. >> having been elected to the office o

outlined in the constitution. hamilton says no, it is in the constitution. i see it here. it is right here in article one, section eight where it says , congress can make all laws that shall be necessary and proper to carry out the constitution. well, that is kind of a loose reading, but that is what hamilton argues. this is part of what is within the powers of congress and the powers of the national government. congress agrees. congress passes the bank charter in 1791. george washington signed it, and thomas jefferson resigned as secretary of state. the third piece of alexander's plan had to do with taxes and in 1792 congress passed hamilton's tax plan. it included increased tariffs on foreign goods. and a whiskey tax. a whiskey tax that would be imposed on whiskey distilled in the united states. hamilton hoped that by dealing with past debts, by establishing a stable currency through the bank, and by providing a steady revenue stream into the national government that -- and these things did happen, he was right

it's the progressive constitution, living constitution sometimes called and what that means is theirustice is really not focused on the individual but focused on the group to which individuals belong. going back to woodrow wilson is a philosophy of group rights and the leading groups have changed in that hundred years since the progressive era and now marginalized and minority groups are, in a way, in the vanguard of the liberal coalition and the liberal view of american politics and not the anglo-saxons that woodrow wilson used to talk about. but still, you have a non- individualist, anti- individualist in a way foundation for all rights and therefore you need a constitution that can continually be adjusted to meet the emerging rights of a continually changing people and that means separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances are negative things, they hold back the evolution of american politics and they hold back the progress in our politics and they have to be overcome. you can see that even now let's say in the last fight over this election. in a way liberals look, i thi

here is a constitutional scholar. he teaches at the university of texas at austin and as a visiting professor at yale and harvard law school and he's been writing for 25 years about the problems with the constitution and how they affect our current events. we got together at the request of our editor at peachtree publishers and wrote the book for young leaders, for kids 9 or 10 and up, way up because, in fact, my husband is using our book with two of his law school classes at harvard and texas. briefly, we go into 20 fault lines all which are currently as george suggested today. >> yes, i'm a cartoonist and my new book is called constitution illustrated and it is like many of my books, it takes famous or infamous text and transforms it into comics and this book is the entire text of the constitution, bill of rights and the amendment, adapted into a comic, each page is drawn in the file, comic strip. overlooking 100 years of american comics and constitution. >> i'm no longer muted. now that we are doing this conversati

again by constitutional text, precedent and common basic sense it is clearly and certainly constitutional to hold a trial for a former official. former president trump committed in the view of many including myself the greatest defense ever committed by a president of the united states. the senate will conduct a trial of the former president and senators will render judgment on his conduct. therefore the point of order is ill-founded any case premature. if senators want this issue debated it can and will be argued during the trial therefore i moved to table the point of order and i asked for the yeas and nays. >> is there sufficient second. >> there is a sufficient second, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [silence] [silence] >> the ayes are 55 in the nays r45, the motion to the m table s agreed to in the poi

constitution. see, the constitution is just a piece of paper. it cannot defend itself. that is why our leaders swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and that's what i'm doing here this evening. the constitution states the times, place and manner of holding elections shall be prescribed by the legislature, not the courts, not the governor, not the secretary of state or other bureaucrats or elected officials, the legislature. in pennsylvania, the supreme court unilaterally extended the deadline for ballots to three days after the election. actually wanted 10. the supreme court is not the legislature. the supreme court mandated unpostmarked ballot it's to be received, destroying the validity of all the votes that were cast timely. the supreme court action defied the law. the legislature and the will of the people. the supreme court altogether ritesed the use of drop boxes where ballot harvesting could occur. the legislature never authorized that form of voting and the court had absolutel

_ constitutional and political histo . . , constitutional and political histo . , , constitutional anddid and still does have. .,,, .. ., ., have. the ossification of polymerisation - have. the ossification of polymerisation in - have. the ossification of polymerisation in the i have. the ossification of- polymerisation in the united states— polymerisation in the united states is— polymerisation in the united states is such _ polymerisation in the united states is such that _ polymerisation in the united states is such that you - polymerisation in the unitedj states is such that you could run a — states is such that you could run a random _ states is such that you could run a random american - states is such that you could run a random american with| states is such that you could. run a random american with a repubiican— run a random american with a republican listed _ run a random american with a republican listed after- run a random american with a republican listed after her- republican listed after her name _ republican listed after her name or— republican listed after her name or

article four, section one of the utah constitution was forward thinking. it reads, "the right of citizens of the state of utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. both male and female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges." during the constitutional convention in 1895, franklin s richard said that the work done in utah on behalf of women would be the purest and brightest of utah's glorious star. with everything at stake, utah's early leaders armed with vision and answerable courage acted boldly. i am here today because of those bold actions and the path we have paved by senators like cannon and alice horn who represented the constituents in the chambers of the legislature decades before most women in america could vote. and of the all-female counsel who in 1911 were elected as a joke but nevertheless answered the call to serve their community and former speaker of the utah house of representatives, rebecca lockhart the first and so far only woman elected to

that would violate the text of the constitution, the intent of the constitution.t. they're all wrong, because they're partisans, they're zealots, and they would come out exactly the other way if the shoe were on the other foot and if this were a democrat. indeed, they did go the other way when clinton was tried. i was also one of those people. hang on, let me slow you down. i helped defend clinton, and the same people took the opposite view. let me slow you down forjust a second. you're inviting a very obvious question. given your strong feelings on this case, are you going to represent donald trump when it does come to the question of a senate impeachment trial? there won't be a trial. this is political theatre, and i'm neither a politician nor an actor. there's no role for a lawyer. they have excluded lawyers from this. they had no lawyers yesterday. they had no opportunity for the president to present his defence. and now they're saying they'll start the trial on the 19th and end it on the 20th. that's not a trial. that's a kangaroo court. i don't think any law

. >> you solemnly swear that you support the constitution of the united states and solemnly sworn in to bear true faith and allegiance to the senate, without any mental reservation or purpose of innovation that you well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which are about to enter so help you god. >> i will. >> congratulations. >> it wasn't normal. >> i'm happy to. >> thank you. >> happy to do it. >> all just recited. >> too solemnly swear you support to defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign into mastic comedy obey faith and allegiance to take the obligations freely without any mental reservation that you are well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office that you are about to enter so help you god. >> i will. >> congratulations. >> i will, thank you so much for all your support. >> i concluded you may brought the largest bible and steve may have brought the smallest. >> it was my grandparents in 1904 when they got married is a must 120 years old. all the entries through death and marriages have been sworn in. >> a group phot

but the constitution is our guide. an it's time we start following the constitution. it's time we get back to what our founding fathers said is the process for selecting electors. that's the legislatures. and public -- in public view. not behind closed doors. not smoke-filled rooms. not bullying somebody who might get you a better ruling. let's get back to rule of law and follow the constitution, madam speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has -- the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the for what from -- purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, this day marks a crossroads for american democracy. those who object to the counting of the electoral college votes which reflect the votes of the american people want to substitute their preferences for the voters' choice. ms. lofgren: that's not what our constitution requires and it is at odds

of the 27 existing amount apples of the constitution. -- amendments of the constitution the work on this project started a year ago on the aclu. we have this idea with the team and the aclu task force on the 28th amendment. i can already see some familiar faces. most of you actually -- [inaudible] -- who are the entire pandemic. we started this project right around late february intentionally it was series of live events in different library buildings all over brooklyn but after the pandemic we moved to zoom and the spring and summer. the idea was to go to you and ask you whether you think is the constitution is silent, what is missing from the constitution and what would you like to see in the 28th amendment, and when we finished the town hall series in june we worked really hard with some of our moderators to condense all the notes which were taken during the town hall meetings and when the work ended we turned to our framers, all four or here tonight with us and we asked them, almost insurmountable task, look at the long list of ideas and come up with a language, with a succinct versi

the constitution prevails here today. and the constitution will always prevail in this country. we'll stand in recess. courtroom deputy rises. the court is in recess and the transcript notes the proceeding is adjourned. and thus concluded a and thus concluded a federal detention hearing, today, for a 22-year-old woman from pennsylvania, whose court-appointed counsel admitted today that she was part of the crowd that entered the capitol that violently attacked the seed does she seat of the u.s. government on january 6th. she was released to her mother's custody today. she's 22 years old. she was released to her mother's custody today with an ankle bracelet. she's basically under house arrest at her mother's house with part of the deterrence factor being that her mother may be very well imprisoned herself if the daughter breaks the conditions under which she was released by the judge today. the judge telling her today, her rights under the constitution are why she has a lawyer, one good enough to get her out of jail and sent home while she awaits trial for these alleged crimes. th

do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: so help you god? >> i will. >> congratulations. >> let's do one normal. thank you. >> happy topp do it. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: so help you god? >> i will.od >> congratulations. >> thank you, sir. >> you, too. i conclude you may have brought the largest bible and steve daines may have brought the smallest. >> it was my parents in 1900 fo4

the constitution gives us here in congress a limited role. we cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. the voters, the courts, and the states have all spoken. they've all spoken. if we overrule them, it would damage our republic forever. this election actually was not unusually close. just in recent history, 1976, 2000, and 2004 were all closer than this one. the electoral college margin is almost identical to what it was in 2016. if this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. we would never see the whole nation accept an election again. every four years would be a scramble for power at any cost. the electoral college, which most of us on this side have been defending for years, would cease to exist. leaving many of our states with no real say at all in choosing a president. the effects would go even beyond the elections themselves. self-government, my colleagues, requires a shared commitment to the truth and a shared respect for the ground

the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment of the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. further, section three of the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits any person who has quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding any office under the united states. in his conduct while president of the united states and in violation of its constitutional oath bailey to execute the office of the president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed donald john trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the united states. in that, on january 6, 2021 pursuant to the 12 of them and to the constitution of the united states the vice president of the united states the house of representatives