gets their last meal
(and a drink of water)
on the same day they die."
Judge Greer Ordered Terri to Die
By Starvation and Dehydration
A Criminal? NO.
A Murderer? NO.
Innocent? YES.
Disabled? YES.
Euphoric? NO, unless you are George Felos et al.
Posted on 04/09/2005 4:58:13 PM PDT by tutstar
In all my years dealing with constitutional law, I have always said no to judicial impeachment even when from time to time on various issues some conservative activists have argued for it in specific situations. I can generally provide people more arguments against impeachment than for it where judges are concerned. Sometimes I cannot provide arguments for impeachment at all, because all the valid arguments from my point of view mitigated against judicial impeachment in those situations.
The Schiavo matter is dramatically different. Not only am I convinced that judicial impeachment applies here, I am convinced that it applies to every federal judge in the chain from the district court judge who first received the case under the act signed by President Bush, through the appeals judges of the 11th Circuit, to all nine sitting members of the U.S. Supreme Court, with the exception of the one or two judges that bucked the system.
This is the first time in my several decades of dealing with constitutional law that such a situation exists. I never imagined that I would see this situation in my entire lifetime or in my professional career.
The key points are summarized here. They are based on two one-hour radio talkshow interviews I did locally this week which laid out the matter in some detail.
First, Article III uses the words "good behavior" as the term of art dealing with the impeachment of federal judges. The Constitution uses the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the standard of impeachment for the executive and legislative branches. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a higher and more rigid standard than "good behavior" in Article III. In the Schiavo matter, the misconduct on the part of the federal judiciary violates both standards. It violates the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard because by refusing to protect the substantive right to life of Ms. Schiavo under the 14th Amendment, and treating the matter as strictly procedural, the various judges made themselves accessories to murder. It violates the "good behavior" standard for the sorts of reasons explained by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England.
The federal courts obstinately refused in the Schiavo matter to employ a jurisprudence of constitutionally protected inalienable rights mandated by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the rights model of original American jurisprudence from the era of the Founders, and as extended to state misconduct by the 14th Amendment.
The federal courts refused to judicially notice that we prosecuted people for war crimes at Nuremberg for the very sorts of actions taken and required by the Florida state courts in clear violation of the original meaning of inalienable rights and due process of law.
Under our federal union, there has never been a power in any state to execute anyone not convicted of a crime and who has not been indicted and/or tried criminally. Under our federal union and under the constitutions and bills of rights of every individual state, the right to life is inalienable. At the state level, that right can only be lost by an individual person through an act of wrongdoing constituting a forfeiture and adjudicated as such through a criminal trial where due process would apply. Executing an innocent person through a civil process is ultra vires by definition and has been ultra vires for over two hundred years of American experience. Having occurred in the Schiavo matter, the question is not one of due process because there can be no such process, period. Where such occurs, as it has here, it is an act of state tyranny by definition, the ground upon which we fired the king of England.
When people say Ms. Schiavo received due process that is not true because the state is not permitted to have such a process, period. For any state to have a process that executes a person or citizen unconvicted of a crime is not a matter of due process because there can be no such process. The 14th Amendment mandates that the right to life be protected by the federal government if a state materially fails in its duty to secure the inalienable right to life. For any federal judge to fail in that 14th Amendment duty is "bad behavior" and criminal negligence. When the federal courts treated the matter pro forma as a procedural one rather than one of substantive rights, the courts materially breached their duty to a person who is also a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment with both personhood and citizenship rights. In light of the fact that the federal judges' malfeasance has materially redefined (by inaction) something as fundamental to all persons and American citizens as the right to life, and demonstrated by precedent that the federal courts criminally disregard their duty to uphold the right to life, they have failed to maintain the standard of good conduct required of a federal judge and forfeited the respect and obedience of the American people.
For these and related reasons, every federal judge involved in the execution of Terri Schiavo has violated his/her office as judge and has committed the high crime of being an accessory to murder. Therefore every judge so tainted MUST be impeached by Congress and removed from the bench.
For federal courts, the US Congress has the power to create court districts and their jurisdictions. It would seem to me that it would only take a simple majority of the US Congress to define the jurisdiction of a particularly troublesome activist judge or judges to be the sole extent of the bathroom urinals in the federal buildings where they 'legislate' their sentences; a modification of the Buford Pusser gambit.
For the state legislatures, I believe that a similar process could be followed. In this manner, each judge/court would only be master of their toilet (I might add that this is a particularly appropos receptacle for their spew)
Well calling, emailing, or snailmailing Congressmen is something we can all do.
You're so right!! Since we can't depend on the media we need to start emailing it to all our contacts and our congress critters!
We need to take the country back from dishonorable judges.
Well .. from my statment - there is no way you can construe WHO I was specifically talking about - so you're making a long reach to suggest I was against Empire Journal in any way.
My position on the media is very clear - and if you had taken the time to check out what I have said in previous posts .. you could have easily found out my contempt is for the usual suspects - the so-called "mainstream" media. I have on several occasions quoted from The Empire Journal, as well as pointed people to their website.
Please check your facts before making unfounded accusations.
you have a real problem
Hmmmmm? Didn't like my reply ..?? Poor thing!
High school civics, and college Poli-Sci classes seem so far back ....this actually sounds like a great idea! Are there any examples of congress changing court districts and jurisdictions?
I don't understand how GREER can continue to rule on ANYTHING schiavo-related... Greer violated a CONGRESSIONAL subpoena!!!! Greer needs to be removed from all related cases or better yet behind bars.
Another avenue of evil... we haven't even really gotten into the organ harvesting industry, but it is part and parcel with the cult of death. Along with avoiding living wills, I reccomend avoiding signing organ donation agreements as they may tend to hasten ones death should something unforseen happen.
Wear them out while you have them.
Quit writing about it and do it! We need to go after every judge that bases case law on FOREIGN courts and those not of the consitution as well! Get out the ropes, boys!
How was Greer allowed to get away with avoiding the subpoena?</p>
You're wrong. They intentionally drafted it so that it would be declared unconstitutional. Actually, the conservatives wanted to pass one that was constitutional, and the liberals refused. So they modified it so that the liberals would go along, but the price of going along was that they had to write it in such a way that it was 100% certain to be declared unconstitutional. Basically, they wrote it so that it applied only to one person, namely Terri Schiavo. They could have, should have, written it so that it applied to everyone, and it would have been upheld. They did not want that.
It's dino-mite and should really have a thread if its own. One of the best expositions on the 14th Amendment I've read. Ties in the critical decisions made during the post Civil War period which greased the 'slippery slope.' Best -- Dave
Do you have word perfect? I have the file but don't have word perfect?
No I'm not wrong - that legislation HAS NOT been declared UN-Constitutional - and if it has - you need to show me some proof.
Unfortuantely it won't happen. We won't be able to get even GREER impeached, though we should work for his disbarrment.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ZYodNUeNzTIJ:www.citizensoldier.org/dredscottterrischiavo.pdf+Dred+Scott+and+Terri+Schiavo+--+The+Long+and+Tortured+Death+of+the+14th+Amendment+At+the+Hands+of+the+Federal+Judiciary+&hl=en
It's cached but would have to be formatted in order to look right on a thread. Do you have time to do it?
thanks
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.