It is more fun criticizing
Such is the first principle being debated in the Sarah impeachment: debate on the denominator, for the all the senators: 24 or those just in attendance. One magistrate, Azcuna, says its 24 since he was the orginal author, I agree. The other three are of an announcer or common man mentality: it depends, or maybe it does not matter. - WHAT IS POPULAR OR WHAT IS .... (whom you had dinner with ....) matters.
Strictly to the letter,or to the spirit?
The religious are split between the fundamentalists and those who live according to the spirit of the scriptures or what is written. Thus among Franciscans there is a schism. Among the Muslimes, there are fundamentalists - strict interpretation of the law and the liberals.
In my college education, I was taught and I kept in mind that there are certain subjects that are fundamental and immutable: math and science for intance. 1+1 =2 cant be changed.
In literature, when somebody says his interpretation of the poems is in between the lines, the Prof says curtly "Where is it? I coud not see any" And the prof became a National Artist.
In drama, a meztizo professor surnamed Romualdez (he reports in MB SLC) says answers to his exams are the very same he mentions in pop sheet, attempted to reduce drama critique into something that is constant.
So whom do we agree, or spend money with (P60 m a day expense on impeachment?) Azcuna or the 3 others/ I go for Azcuna...
What if the Senators decide to amend the constitution and use another denominator? One legal mind said it could be unconstitutional. Do you agree. ?
Another important issue: the question by Sen. Robinhood Padilla - since impeachment court is a superior court, can any other courts touch or investigate its members while in session (or arrest its subject as with RTC)? Can other courts pressure its members (as what is happening) This is worth seriously looked into
