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.
I'm not ready to surrender yet! 8^}
If you want to try and get GREER impeached, go right ahead. Trying to get anyone else impeached is beyond futile.
Your energy and efforts would be better directed elsewhere.
Sorry, I'm not a quitter. Many things would never have happened if folks listened to their detractors.
If one woman could get prayer taken out of schools, thousands of people working together just may accomplish an impeachment or impeachments.
I'm not going to argue whether the glass is half full or half empty. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to discourage me.
MCD
Here's what the Florida Supreme Court said:
"The narrow issue in this case requires this Court to decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the Legislature that directly affected Theresa Schiavo, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. This Court, after careful consideration of the arguments of the parties and amici, the constitutional issues raised, the precise wording of the challenged law, and the underlying procedural history of this case, concludes that the law violates the fundamental constitutional tenet of separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Theresa Schiavo. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order declaring the law unconstitutional."
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc04-925/op-sc04-925.pdf
We seem to have difficulty in getting amendments to the constitution passed imo. Tired and will have to take this up tomorrow. Any other suggestions? Not being smart here just asking you if you have any other thoughts?
No one is suggesting you quit. Anyone who knows me knows I'm no quitter either.
It is laughable and ludicrous for anyone to think you will get all those judges impeached.
Work on getting Congress to investigate, let the chips fall where they may and perhaps maybe we'll snag Judge Greer and a few other authorities.
Judge Bork was speaking of the Supreme Court as he believes it to be TODAY, not decades ago. He didn't say there was never in history a time when the SCOTUS heard a case about a only one person.
"For what it's worth, Judge Bork said on Hannity's radio show that he knew the Supremes would not take the appeal, because he knows they would never take a case about any law that was only about one person...in this case, Terri Schiavo. Yes, we know it had wider implications, but the law itself was only about Terri. He said it was doomed not to be heard, and the Congress should have known that."
seems that the SCOTUS ruled for one person in bush v. gore.. when i read the opinion of the majority they were quite explicit that their ruling in that case applied ONLY to that case, and wasn't to set any precedent or apply to any future case. so what gives here?
Maybe a vote on the ballots state by state from the voters passing it into law! I don't know but I believe that with so many signatures in most states an item can be put forward to vote on.
MCD
Brilliant wrote: Here's what the Florida Supreme Court said: ""
The link you used is not the law passed by congress in March of 2005. Your pdf is the Florida Supreme Court's reply to Jeb Bush, concerning Terri's Law, which was passed in October of 2003.
Therefore - No Cigar~! :)
I admire your passion. There's not one single reason for us to give up. Terri's family fought long and hard for her. The least we can do, is to continue on. Rep Delay is being attack on every front for just trying to do what's right. If our country is to continue the killing of the disabled and others, what kind of a country do we have?
I have no words other than Hitler to describe it. And it makes me sick to even imagine it.
Okay - you proved your point.
BUT .. I will never agree with you that they intentionally wrote it to be UN-Constitutional. That I don't believe at all.
And .. I don't believe it was UN-Constitutional - it was just another example of how the Men in Black have chosen to punish the people - by nullifying everything they do - unless of course they are democrats and then it's a free ride.
Brillant didn't prove the point at all. She pointed you towards The Florida Supreme Court ruling on the October 2003 Terri's Law.
What is interesting is seeing what people in other
countries think about this whole situation. Here are
two sections of the Japan Newspaper on line:
Terri Schiavo
http://forum.japantoday.com/Terri_Schiavo/m_381016/tm.htm
Terri Schiavo Dies
http://forum.japantoday.com/Terri_Schiavo_Dies/m_391913/tm.htm
Interested in PRAVDA, SCOTLAND AND CHINA?
So if you think they did not intentionally write it to be unconstitutional, then why did they write it this way? I remember seeing interviews of legislators on TV before the court ruled on the issue, and the legislators themselves were saying it was unconstitutional and was certain to be declared so by the court. I remember the conservatives saying that they would have liked to get a better bill, but this is the only thing they could get passed, and they were hoping it would work.
The liberals are not stupid. They made sure it would be declared unconstitutional. They did not want to be blamed for blocking legislation, and they figured that the GOP would look foolish if it passed an unconstitutional bill. They jumped at the opportunity to make them look like fools.
Even so, one of the most conservative judges on the 11th Circuit (who was appointed by Bush, Sr.) wrote a scathing concurring opinion in the 11th Circuit's decision denying rehearing in which he lambasted the Congress and the President for passing the statute, and explained at length why it was unconstitutional in his opinion. If the most conservative members believe that, then you can bet the liberals do as well.
Full text of the pdf is posted here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1381398/posts
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.