Special Notices
- Watch the whole conference & support 1776 Law Center. https://www.1776lawcenter.com/2026-conference/v/robert-barnes
- A common source of painting over the years: the Charles Bridge in Prague, it’s broad pathway bordered by statues of saints over the centuries blessing the passers by. In the eye’s view awaits towering buildings criss-crossing the ages of architecture, from the Romanesque to the Cubist, the Gothic sprites to Rennaisance palaces, from the Baroque glamor to the Art Nouveau throwbacks. Prague — the place where a local biker barking at you on Kafka street seems strangely in sync with the wild styles that speak to you across its skyline, where a visit to a local cafe invites you back into a 12th century cave where dissidents hid out and plotted revolutions. All of it you can glimpse from the bridge that bridges time itself across its skyline.
- "No man is big enough to run this great Republic. There never has been one. Such domination was never intended. Tranquillity, stability, dependability—all are assured in party sponsorship. and we mean to renew the assurances which were rended in the cataclysmal war.” Warren Harding, July 1920.
- Uploading clips to individual channel. https://www.youtube.com/@robertbarnes5175/videos
- Judge Napolitano
- Dialogue Works
- Election Night
- Election Preview
- Daniel Davis
- Saturday AMA https://sportspicks.locals.com/post/8307761/live-betting-w-barnes-saturday-november-7-2026
- Political truth. https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/8307703/title
- Cancerous effects of corporatized policies in food & medicine. https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/investigation-exposes-americas-growing-cancer-crisis-and-reveals-where-its-worst
- Market reacts to elections. https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/after-the-crash-another-wave-of-bad
- JD identifies what went wrong. https://x.com/JDVance/status/2118004988433641835?a=GLDioOppn8DUWqw3n0E&s=20
- The story the west suppresses. https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2117462773709889570?a=HLPTYo0CEBDAWaB9bHU&s=20
- Wisdom from the last electoral revolt at this scale. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-accepting-the-republican-presidential-nomination-marion-ohio
- Dhillon out. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/05/us/politics/harmeet-dhillon-resigns-doj-civil-rights-unit.html
- Brennan potential prosecutor out. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6203924-reding-quinones-doj-resignation/
- Big Tech demands right to harm kids. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/meta-v-bonta-complaint.pdf
- Trump project blocked. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/chutkan-trump-memorial-arch-blocked-opinion.pdf
- Ukraine abuse exposed. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/gandzyuk-and-others-v-ukraine-echr-judgment.pdf
- Immunity at SCOTUS. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/nielsen-scotus-cato-amicus.pdf
- Brand convicted. https://www.reuters.com/world/comedian-russell-brand-found-guilty-rape-2026-11-05/
- Business reviews and libel law. https://courthousenews.com/minnesota-high-court-urged-to-shield-negative-google-reviews-from-defamation-suits/
- Panhandling ban held unconstitutional. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202311163.pdf
- European censorship laws expand. https://rmx.news/article/prison-time-for-discussing-the-great-replacement-french-left-wing-lawmakers-push-for-new-draconian-law/
- The Constitution confers the power of removal of the President through impeachment to Congress, and Congress alone.
- First, Section 2 of Article I governing the legislative powers of the federal government provide the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” acting as the grand jury function in the impeachment process. The Senate has no role in initiating impeachment, and can only act if the House acts first. The absence of super-majority requirements provide the House to allow impeachment by a mere majority of it’s members present, like any other legislative act.
- Second, section 4 of Article II cabins what can constitute grounds for impeachment can result in removal, conditioning it upon three substantive claims — treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, No specific definition is given of what constitutes “high crimes” but its analogy to treason and bribery provide some direction, as does the historical understanding of the term at the time of ratification — the kind of criminal act that endangers the Constitutional republic and cannot be answered by awaiting a Presidential election. Treason itself is Constitutionally constricted definitionally in section 3 of Article 3 to “consist only in leving war, or in adhering to their Enemeies, giving them aid and comfort.”
- Third, Section 3 of Article I imposes further substantive constraints on Impeachment by limiting the legal consequences 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” while coequally providing that conviction in impeachment does not act as double jeopardy against subsequent criminal prosecution.
- Fourth, Section 2 of Article 3 removes jury trials from “cases of impeachment” and removes the judicial branch from the Presidential impeachment process except for one limited role: the Chief Justice presiding over the trial. Under Clause 6 of Section 4 of Article I, the Constitution confers the “sole power to try all impeachments” to the Senate, requiring a “concurrence of two thirds of the members present” to convict.
- Fifth, the judgment of conviction is not appealable to any other body, and the Senate’s declaration according to its own roles immedietly effects “removal from office.” It has no retroactive or retrospective effect on the legality or validity of any prior Presidential act, even if that act is the grounds for impeachment and conviction itself. Other than Chief Judge setting the rule for evidence admission, the interpretation of the impeachment clause and its impact is left to the judgment of the House and Senate alike. Theoretically, a Chief Justice could impose a different intepretation on the substantive meaning of the conditions of conviction, given its power to “preside over” the trial, but has generally not been interpreted or applied in that manner.
