David H. Penny v. Nancy Pelosi, et al.

In 1868 (U.S. Congressional Globe), the 40th Con­ gress set its precedent to adhere to textual commit­ ment for the criteria to impeach a President. The Court, in Powell v. MacCormack (1969), United States v. Brewster (1972) Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n (2010), and United States v. Mendez (2016) set precedents pertaining to this petition: that political speech, voting, and financial campaign contributions are part of 1st Amendment free speech supporting standing, that the Speech or Debate Clause and the Political Question Doctrine do not prohibit the ability to inquire whether or not a legislative act is legitimate, that legislative activity if determined to be illegitimate also is not protected, that the usage criteria or limits to the authority of Congress’s powers is tied to a tex­ tual commitment to the U.S. Constitution, that Con­ gress cannot add to or exceed specifically enumerated powers without an amendment to the U.S. Constitu­ tion, and illegitimate legislative acts of any kind are of national significance, unlawful, and justiciable. The question presented is: Does a citizen constituent of a duly elected Presi­ dent have the possibility of filing a complaint with standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and justiciability, to sue members of the House who voted to impeach President Trump in 2019, to inquire whether they con­ ducted illegitimate legislative activity in the manner they used their sole power to impeach?