Talk:Alcee Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Alcee Hastings is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Contents 1 Unclear wording 2 Argument offering no useful information 3 Comment to the See also 3.1 Vandalism 4 Impeachment question

[edit] Unclear wording

I removed the following text: and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial. The sentence was originally worded:

The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial.

Does this mean that the Senate reduced his sentence if he agreed to perjure himself at his trial? Even the sentence that still remains doesn't make any sense. They convicted him in exchange for a lenient sentence??? What was exchanged? Why did they give him a lenient sentence? Is it because he pled guilty? Ufwuct 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument offering no useful information

I removed the following from the article because, while interesting, it is not really about Alcee Hastings and seem to be little more then a legal issues debate.

The Senate did not have an option of disqualifying to hold office..... The Constitution barred him from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, when the Senate voted to "convict and remove" Art 1 Sec 3 Cl9 states........ removal AND disqualification to.......... Notice the word "AND", the dictionary defines "And" as meaning to conjoin, and "conjoin" as meaning "to unite", "to tie together", "to make as one". disqualification was not/is not an option for the Senate! Alcee can not legally hold any office of honor, trust, or profit. Notice the word "or"? if the office meets any one, two, or three of the definitions the person can not hold that office. in simple..... "or" is optional...... "and" is inclusive. A blunder on the part of the Senate can not change or alter the Constitution.

[edit] Comment to the See also

This is not really true. The Constitution says: "Judgment in cases of impeachment 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".

So the MAXIMUM judgement shall be "removal and disqualification" but it does NOT prescribe them and leaves the Senate free to impose a lesser judgment. This is typical of sentencing guidelines "maximum penalty 5 years in prison and $5,000 fine". It does not mean you have to impose both.

[edit] Vandalism

I just reverted the page back from "YOU SUCK!!!"

Or at least I tried to.

(SSJPabs)

[edit] Impeachment question

Was Hastings acquitted in the criminal trial before or after he was impeached? The current article suggests the latter, but a quote from an article in the New Republic (admittedly a far from NPOV source) seems to suggest the former: "Ordinarily, few people would take Hastings seriously for such an important job. In 1981, Hastings was a federal judge in Miami. He was accused of conspiring with a friend to take a $150,000 bribe in exchange for issuing light sentences to a pair of mobsters. A Miami jury acquitted Hastings (while convicting the friend), but three different federal judicial panels later referred him to Congress for impeachment. "Judge Hastings attempted to corruptly use his office for personal gain. Such conduct cannot be excused or condoned even after Judge Hastings has been acquitted of the criminal charge," concluded one panel, composed of five circuit court judges. . . ." [1]. --NeuronExMachina 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He was acquitted in the criminal trial first, then impeached and removed by the Senate. Here's a Washington Post article with more info. MorrisGregorian 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the page (at the time you posted this) suggested he was acquitted after his impeachment. But I do think your rewrite is much better than what was there. I removed the clause "Despite the acquittal," though, as this implies that there is, or should be, some connection between acquittal/conviction and impeachment. Pudge 03:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)