Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: G.Mason
"Chief Justice Rehnquist said in his report on Friday that it had been clear since early in the country's history that "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."

Correction, Mr. Chief Justice -- a judge's judicial acts have served as the basis for impeachment. The House impeached Samuel Chase, but the Senate didn't convict. There's a precedent!

A violation of one's oath could constitute judicial misconduct if the House had the guts to force the issue.
26 posted on 03/03/2005 6:04:25 AM PST by JMK (There's nothing as dangerous to your well-being as a rich Democrat in office!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: JMK
Excellent point, which leads to the question ...

At what point in our dealings with this "experiment", called the United States, do we the people decide that each and every candidate for appointed office, in any American government institution, be given a psychiatric examination to discerne that individuals sanity?

As with Dean the voters decided he was insane, and therefore disqualified him.

There is no such check on appointed judges.

37 posted on 03/03/2005 6:16:10 AM PST by G.Mason ("If you are broken It is because you are brittle" ... K.Hepburn, The Lion In Winter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: JMK

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.



185 posted on 03/03/2005 6:46:48 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson