Just when it seems Connecticut might be close to shedding the label "Corrupticut", another scandal emerges that makes people more cynical about politics and more disengaged from the process of governing ourselves.
We can all tick off the names of prominent Connecticut politicians who have been recently or are currently serving time for serious crimes: John Rowland, Phil Giordano, Joe Ganim, Ernie Newton.
So when the Minority Leader of the Senate pleads guilty to intimidation charges, lies to the FBI, and fails to report being offered a bribe, it makes people wonder how to get rid of the crooks and liars whose actions pervert the idea of self-government.
Rep. Mike Lawlor, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and former member of the Select Committee of Inquiry, which held hearings into the possible impeachment of Gov. John Rowland, said today that impeachment of General Assembly members is not allowed under the Connecticut Constitution.
However, expulsion or punishment of the member by a 2/3 vote of the chamber to which he/she is elected is possible, Lawlor says.
[U]nder the Connecticut Constitution, only “the governor, and all other executive and judicial officers” can be impeached.
However, [Lawlor] said, Article III, Section 13 of the state constitution provides that a legislator can be expelled or punished by a two-thirds vote of the chamber in which that legislator is a member.
He explained, “The impeachment an officer from the executive or judicial branch would require a hearing in the House of Representatives followed by a majority vote in the House. If the House votes to impeach, then there would then be a full trial in the Senate. Following the trial, removal from office would then require a two-thirds vote by the Senate.”
“However, in the case of a legislator, only the body in which that legislator resides can punish or expel them. Either case would require a two-thirds vote by that chamber alone,” Lawlor said.
It's possible, then, that a 2/3 majority of the Senate could vote to expel Sen. DeLuca. Democrats hold that much of a majority.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
The Great Maura at My Left Nutmeg makes the case...
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
