Posted on 04/14/2005 2:17:42 PM PDT by FreeUs FromGovt Out of Control
A new U.S. Constitutional Amendment is needed requiring that ALL court findings be confined to, or restricted to, the U.S. Constitution and English Common Law, PERIOD! (Case Law and "penumbras" be DAMNED).
Judges who violate this new Amendment would readily be charged, indicted, tried, and ajudicated by the legislative body of jurisdiction. A finding of guilty would carry permanent disbarment from further judicial service.
Judges who violate this new Amendment would readily be charged, indicted, tried, and ajudicated by the legislative body of jurisdiction. A finding of guilty would carry permanent disbarment from further judicial service.
You need to throw ratified treaties in there as well.
Judges who violate this new Amendment would readily be charged, indicted, tried, and ajudicated by the legislative body of jurisdiction. A finding of guilty would carry permanent disbarment from further judicial service.
That can be done already - through impeachment. But it won't happen, because it takes a 2/3rds vote to remove in the Senate and the Dems and selected RINOs wouldnt' go along.
So, rather than trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, increase the number of people who see judicial activism as a pox instead of a pancea.
you got it, yougotit.
A portion of the constitution itself (i.e. an amendment) cannot be declared unconstitutional.
Now ... how exactly would that be worded?
Are we going to pass a law that says that judges should follow the law??? And if they don't, they should be impeached???
You need to go read the article on judicial activism -- it might provide some knowledge to go with your passion.
True enough, the fedgov just ignores inconvenient sections instead.
That already IS the law.
But this is no longer a country that is ruled by law. Instead we are ruled by lawyers.
Judges Greer and Whittemore would declare such a law as absurd and it would go nowhere.
Would such a law even apply to Greer who did not take the Oath of his office?
With Greer's exercising of power recently, it probably wouldn't make any difference ... and sadly, too many at FR would accept same.
LOL. Common law is case law. Back to the drawing board...
The Court has made itself the FINAL DECISION maker of the government. They can make any decision they want and according to they and their supporters it cannot be questioned. Their word is the LAW and cannot be questioned.
But they cannot declare the constitution itself to be unconstitutional, which is what you said they would do. They can interpret it in ways not intended and they can find "penumbras" and "implied rights" that shouldn't be found, but they cannot declare a constitutional amendment (which is what we were talking about) to be unconstitutional in its entirety. My point was that we should be accurate and not say that if a constitutional amendment were passed, the Court could declare it unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.