Announcing Free Republic's MARCH for JUSTICE II, April 7, 2005, Washington, D.C.!!

In October 1998, Free Republic marched on Washington demanding the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Thanks to our efforts, Clinton was impeached less than two months later.

Then, as now, our country stood at a Constitutional crossroad. This year we stand at the crossroad of what kind of judiciary we will have: One that is restrained by the Constitution, or one that abridges our rights by making it up as they go along.

President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate are gearing up for a showdown with the Democrats over his judicial nominees. The Democrats have used the filibuster in an unprecedented way to block judicial nominees from getting an up or down vote. Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist are getting ready to employ the Constitutional option--most likely in mid-April.

A simple majority is needed to implement the Constitutional option. However, even with a 55 vote majority, a victory by the Republicans is in doubt. Democrats, unswayed by their ever-diminishing numbers in the Senate, have threatened to almost totally shut down the Senate if the Republicans succeed.

The Democrats are desperate because the judiciary is their last hope to force their liberal, unconstitutional agenda on the American people. If the filibuster is broken, they know that President Bush will be able to nominate and get confirmed Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. If the filibuster holds, we'll get justices like Anthony Kennedy who look to foreign law and opinion to support their unconstitutional rulings.

Therefore, in order to support President Bush's judicial nominees, and to put the Senate and the courts on notice that We the People demand the Constitution be respected and maintained, we will march on Washington on Thursday, April 7, 2005.

We will rally at Upper Senate Park, directly across the Capitol between Constitution Avenue and Union Station, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Immediately after the rally, we will march on the offices of all 100 senators in groups of state citizens to impress upon them the seriousness of our cause.

We will be working to bring other conservative groups in to co-sponsor the rally. Speakers and co-sponsors will be announced as they confirm.

We will need to raise funds for the rally. The estimated cost is $8,000. Capitol Police rules do not allow us to seek donations at the rally, so we will have to raise the funds before. Click here to help out.

Lord willing, I'll be making the trip from California to D.C. for the rally. It's short notice, but this is too important to stand back. Our rights are at stake. Defend them now, or watch a justice like Anthony Kennedy look to foreign law and opinion one day to take away your Second Amendment and other rights.

Thanks very much for your comments. The debate on how to best amend the Constitution should start now.

Your comments are very valuable. Limiting the term of the tenure of the judges has some decided advantages. But also limiting the tenure of the judges is also some decided disadvantages. The question is, does the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

This is the reason why I believe that constitutional changes should be accomplished by statutory laws, not direct amendments to the Constitution.

The only way to know whether your proposal would be workable in reducing judicial activism is to make a law and try it first. The taste of the pudding is the the eating. If your proposal is included in a constitutional amendment and it does not seem satisfactory to solve the problem of judicial activism, it would be very complicated to amend a constitution.

However, if your proposal were just embodied in a statutory law, it just requires a simple majority or plurality vote in Congress to amend it. Perhaps your proposal is sound but it requires just a refinement. This would be easy if this constitutional amendment is a simple law. You could test and retest the law until you come out into a perfect law. This is easier in a statutory law than a constitutional law.

The reason why the framers of the Constitution made the tenure of the judges lifelong is because it requires a lot of experience as a judge to really make great judicial decisions. The longer the judge remains in office, the more valuable his services become to the state by virtue of his expanding experience.

Limiting the tenure of the judges would open up the judiciary to inexperienced judges who will turn out to be a headache to the state in the long run. The limitation of the tenure of the judges' term would create problems in government. These problems is what you would call the disadvantages of the constitutional amendment you are proposing.

The power to review the constitutionality of the law is given to the judiciary for practical reasons. The test of the law is really determined on how it fares in our courts. The law may seem perfect from the eyes of its creators in Congress, but really its perfection cannot be known unless it is tested in the courts. This is the reason why the courts have the power to amend the law through common law provisions. Common law are laws that are in effect by virtue of the pronouncement of the judges.

Common law seems to give the courts legislative powers to make or unmake laws. The power of the courts to legislate laws cannot be avoided in the practical art of governance. Usually, Congress customarily makes a codification of laws. Somebody in Congress makes a study of common law provisions and tries to make a amendment to existing law in the light of the laws actual experience in the courts. The codification of the law takes into account the actual court decisions with regards to the implementation of the law. Any amendment of an existing law is nothing but a codification of that law.

In practice, the codification of the law takes time. Extensive debates in and out of Congress, in the press as well as in the courts takes place before a codification of the law is proposed in Congress. Our discussion here is one form of debate on how best to effect a constitutional amendment because we are informing each other on what is the best alternative to bring about an efficient amendment to the Constitution based on our own individual study of the matter. This is the reason why your comments in very valuable to me because it educates me about constitutional law.

There has been some constitutional amendments in effect in some of the states in the United States that opened the selection of Supreme Court judges to election, but this has not solved the problem of judicial activism satisfactorily in those states themselves.

Usually, an effective constitutional amendment is composed of a series of laws not just one law.

"Should Bill Clinton be Immune from Prosecution?!!"

From another thread, a discussion about whether or not America should hold Bill Clinton accountable for the multiple felonies he and his Administration have committed...

bayourod in bold

"...focus only on the question of whether Bill Clinton should be brought to trial. This was the great question when Nixon resigned and Ford pardoned him because he didn't think the nation should be put through the ordeal of a trial of Mr. Nixon."

First off, Nixon was never accused of committing a criminal offense vis a vis Watergate. Ford pardoned him, but there was never an actual law broken...I would argue that Clinton has committed multiple felonies that, if prosecuted, would have him in jail until the day he passed on to his Final Judgement.

"Some of the considerations should be:
1. How serious was the offense? Was it a technical violation such as comingling union contributions in hard money accounts; or was it a universally recognized crime such as murder of a potential witness?"

While I seriously believe Clinton has most likely conspired to have folks murdered, I've yet to see the concrete evidence; still, just because he's an ex-POTUS, should he be allowed to get away with rampant Abuse of Power, blatant Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, and making a mockery of our existing Campaign Finance Laws? I say no.

"2. What was the impact of the crime on the nation? Was the impact negligible like pardoning someone for going AWOL during World War II; or does the crime threaten the very existence of the country, such as selling China the secrets enabling them to destroy every major city in the nation?"

As the highest-ranking member of the Executive Branch, IMHO Clinton's crimes have done major damage to the legitimacy of our government, and thereby the "very existence of the country." How can a blatant abuser of our laws be allowed to go absolutely unpunished in a Land that claims that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW?! Explain that to the teenager imprisoned for smoking a weed in his basement.

"3. How strong is the evidence? Is it circumstantial, relying on the testimony of dubious witnesses; or is there incontrovertable physical evidence such as video recordings and records written in Bill's hand?"

The arrogance Clinton has displayed in committing multiple felonies has resulted in a carelessness that will bear fruit in any SERIOUS investigation of his crimes. There are many, many people within his sphere of influence who know where the skeletons are buried, and they have likewise committed crimes in his service. As these underlings are brought to Justice and plead out, they will provide valuable testimony linking Clinton to any number of crimes that you and I may never even been aware of. And Clinton has been extremely sloppy in leaving documented proof of his guilt to be readily discovered by hungry investigators.

"4. Was the offense committed as an official act, such as selling seats on trade missions, or was it entirely separate from official duties, such as rape?"

SHEEESH, my FRiend, I cannot believe you actually believe this is a consideration. We are a Nation of Laws, and if those laws are legitimate enough to prosecute you or me for, why not some hayseed from Arkansas?

"5. Would prosecution cause bitter division among Americans because the offense is one that people hold strongly held opposite opinions on, such as lying about having sex because that's what gentlemen are taught to do; or one that everyone is in agreement on, such as using FBI files to blackmail elected officials?"

Once again, if folks are going to argue that the Laws are invalid, how come we don't see an uprising calling for said laws to be revoked, so that you and I cannot be held accountable for them, just like the ex-Most Powerful Man in the FReeWorld?!

"6. How would prosecution effect future policy. Would it create a public outcry for campaign finance reform that would result in destruction of our First Amendment rights and turn the government over to liberal Democrats? Would it appear to Democrat voters as petty vindictiveness on the part of Republicans that would result in such a backlash that Democrat Senators would be forced to reject confirmation of pro-life judges?"

Here, my FRiend, you are arguing political strategy. Fair enough, as that seems to be most FReepers' argument against holding the ex-First Felon accountable for his many crimes against this Nation. My response is that this is a very important time in our Country's history, as we are deciding whether or not We the Sheeple will sit idly by and allow Rampant Corruption to go on at the highest echelons of the Federal Guv'ment, and do absolutely NOTHING!! SHEEESH...Clinton's not a frickin' KING...he's no different than you or I!! Are LeftWing DemocRATS going to actually argue that a corrupt ex-POTUS should be allowed to get away with committing multiple felonies? If so, are the Sheeple going to go along meekly and support those same hopelessly-corrupt individuals in the next election? If so, we've already lost this Country, and we should readily expect to go the way of the once-great Roman Empire.

"Now to answer your question. I believe we elected a President who is of extremely high moral character who loves this country and is trying as hard as he can to do what he sincerely believes is best for our nation. I believe that he chose an honest, conscientious, competent Attorney General. I have complete confidence in their judgment and will support whatever decisions that they make."

Here, my FRiend, we are in complete agreement...however, I believe Dubyuh and Ashcroft need to hear from folks who "sincerely believe [what] is best for our nation" is that the Guilty--no matter how Powerful or allegedly popular--are brought to Justice!! Are we a Nation of Laws? Or are certain folks in this Country ABOVE the Laws that govern and restrict the rest of us?

As for J.W., whatever...you may question their motivation as you see fit, but at least they seem to be trying to do something about the Injustice that is the Clinton Administration. That's more than I seem to be seeing from the Department of Justice these days.

Seriously, my fellow FReepers, am I just a Right-Wing Whacko for expecting the Laws of this Nation to apply to ALL Americans...even those who once held office at the highest echelons of our Federal Guv'ment?!

FReegards...MUD (07/14/2001)

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.