Strict interpretation of what is written or being lax (BENDALOS) by amicus curiae

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  

Impeachment proceedings becoming too technical and boring, only lawyers and wannabees would be interested

It is more fun criticizing

Lately the impeachment proceedings have been too technical and difficult to understand for non lawyers and perhaps its viewership  and readership.    Some say prosecution is leading, some say defense lawyers have been smart in their counterpunch.  

Lately the President Justice has issued a gag order on parties from making comments in their forum soc media account outside of the court.

Whatever the outcome will be we go on with our lives and repair the damages from the typhoon, and help rebuild the economy which languished at 2.3% and peso weakening at Php62: USD1 and unemployment that has risen to more than a million workers. 

Could Trump lose its case at Supreme Court over the tariff law being used to change economic landscape

It is more fun criticizing

Manay say he could.   Businessmen challenge the unbounded provision of lower courts because that eans they could not plan and the numbers go up and up.

Many challenge that such a law meant ot punish terrorist could be interpreted boldly to reshape world economy.   No man has done this before and it is beng challenged.   As of now, this policy is working against the majority of Americans 

Can the evidence at quadcomm hearings send the parties to jail? What is the truth?

It is more fun criticizing

If the investigations being conducted were to be endorsed to coutrts, can the parties be hailed to jail.   One of the lawyers said that so far, the facts being mentioned are ciurcumstantial and nothing has been shown or proven the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of his client.

We can not blame the parties from denying, or say lying, under oath, because they can indict hemselves come court time.   

So far we have affidavits and sometimes hearsays in th hearing, or maritess stuff.   That there were meetings, and purported verbal orders or calls can not methinks send the alleged guilty parties to prison sentences.   I am sure the police offcers were smart enough not leave any smoking guns.   

Or can the trail of narratives when taken up at courts can lead to  conviction or lay blame on past Presidents. 

The venue was public opinion and the way the hearings were conducted were to sway public opinion.  Again we cant prove  here any truth so with the investigations.    We are left asking the question :   "What is the truth>