[NetValue]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

[ClintonBeGone]

Are not treaties part of the constitution?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

---

O'Connor should have been impeached years ago, when in her majority opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood she stated that even though she acknowledged that Roe v. Wade misinterpreted the Constitution, she was bound to respect stare decisis and uphold the "right" to kill babies. That the Constitution is the highest form of law in the land, and thus will trump any decision by a branch of government, has been a staple of American jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison. If a judge were to write "sure, the Constitution says X, but the President or Congress says Y and I am bound to follow what the President or Congress said," there is no doubt that that judge would be subject to impeachment for violating his oath of office and not abiding by the supremacy of the Constitution. When O'Connor did just that, but instead of following the President follows what 6 judges said back in 1973, she is saying that the opinion of a branch of government is higher law than the Constitution and/or that the Constitution may be amended in a way not provided for in Article V. I don't see how anyone could argue that those aren't grounds for impeachment.

O'Connor is even worse than the extreme liberals in the Court, since at least the liberals purport to be interpreting the Constitution when they discover a "right" to abortion, but O'Connor is saying "the Constitution does not create that right, but this 30-year-old case is higher law than the Constitution itself." That's just obscene.

[veryone]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm





Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[Don Corleone]

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

Notice that NOWHERE does it demand that they preserve, protect or defend the Constitution, an oath others of us must take to assume federal responsibilities.