Posted on 04/10/2005 3:25:05 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...
We have all said the pledge more times then we can remember; but what does it mean to pledge your allegiance to a republic, our republic? By definition you pledge your loyalty, commitment, adherence, faithfulness and duty to the republic. When we pledge our allegiance we are duty bound to faithfully adhere to which our republic stands. Our commitment is proclaimed and defined in our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and the Amendments (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution. “We The People” are self-governed by what “We The People” have agreed to from the day “We The People” declared or independence.
Our United States Constitution is the operations manual for the U.S. Government. It is the final authority. Our founders devised a mechanism for the operation of government by the people. It describes the branches of government and defines the powers, which each branch has. With machinery and government it’s important to follow the operations manual; if the manual is not adhered to the machinery heats up due to friction. “We The People” are witness to a misunderstanding of how the machinery of American Government was intended to operate. The machinery is getting red hot because the operators have not adhered to the operations manual.
The machinery of government is collectively owned by “We The People;” it is our role as owners to insist that the machinery is operated as intended. The malfunctioning component of the machinery -- which has not been used as intended -- is judicial impeachment. This diagnosis is apparent because that’s where there is friction.
Our founders set the bar very low for justification of judicial impeachment; all that is required to trigger the process is “bad behavior.” The founding fathers understood that judges would want to stray from legislative intent, that’s why they described such behavior as “bad behavior.” The Constitutional clause in Article III Section 1 (The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior,) may seem vague, however, the clause is all encompassing. The process of judicial impeachment clarifies boundaries; it’s a means of solving problems and reducing friction.
One of our founding fathers (Alexander Hamilton) described the conditions that constitute judicial “bad behavior” in Federalist Paper No. 81.
1) Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system.
2) Deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature.
When I hear our representatives say, “He’s legislating from the bench,” or complain about “judicial activism,” I wonder, “Why do you let them do it? The Constitution clearly states that all a judge has to do to be called in on the carpet is to “behave badly.” If our representatives think a judge has behaved badly -- and they do nothing -- they are not doing their job. Has not the order of the political system already been affected beyond a sensible degree if a Congressman feels that a judge is legislating from the bench?
When we elect our representatives by proxy they become our “voice.” One representative selected by the majority represents the entire voting group. When the judiciary usurps the power of the legislature they usurp the “voice” of “We The People.” We cannot allow our voice to be usurped because if our “voice” is usurped it’s no longer self-government. When individuals or groups declare, “Congress has no business getting involved” -- such as the Terri Schiavo case -- I’m convinced they’re clueless about how the government is intended to work. If by legislation our “voice” deems it necessary to get involved, we are involved. We cannot allow the courts to ignore our “voice.”
Since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling congress has been high-centered on the impeachment issue due to a nonsensical argument. What we have is the Judiciary telling the Congress that they can’t impeach them because of a judicial precedent. A judicial precedent is not a congressional precedent. The Judiciary can operate by precedence if they choose but the Congress is not bound by judicial precedence. Why? Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Constitution says that judges may be impeached for “bad behavior.”
If Congress (our “voice”) took the position that impeachment is equivalent to management calling an employee into the office for a discussion about job performance, they would be viewing the process as it was intended. Every day American management defines boundaries to employees in such a fashion. Would American business function smoothly without frank discussions about job performance? Not a chance. How can we expect the judiciary to function properly without job performance scrutiny? Without boundaries being set? Without such scrutiny the judiciary becomes a crapshoot. Isn’t that what we have presently?
Impeachment should not be confused with impeached. One is required for the other to happen. In American business you are called by management to the office for discussion about your job performance, if management considers that your behavior can no longer be accepted, you are fired. With impeachment a two-thirds vote in the Senate is required for removal (impeached) from the bench. It is very unlikely that a judge will be removed because of the necessary two-thirds vote; however, bad behavior can be addressed without removal. Congress can effectively put a judge on ice during the proceedings, however long they may take.
When the judiciary encroaches on legislative boundaries it’s necessary for the legislature to summons the violators and advise them of their “bad behavior.” If the legislature allows judicial boundaries to expand eventually we have judicial tyranny. No longer is it government by “We The People.” It’s government by . . . “They The Judges.”
Comments: hansonmarine@imt.net
Impeachment of judges should be a regular occurence in a healthy republic; especially when there are so many of them.
Let the Impeaching begin
Well done!
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
As the House of Representatrives did with the Pledge Protection Act last session, they placed the Pledge off limits to the USSC.
One small nit-pick. Both Andrew Johnson and W.J.B.Clinton were impeached. Neither was convicted. It would be the same for judges.
Along with it they hold the "purse strings" (one of my favorite founders terms).
Wouldn't it be interesting to see Congress cut the judiciary budget by, say, 99% for a year.
My injury is always more insulted when, for instance, the 9th Circus Court goes into action....on my dime.
Term limits are also automatic. The people would never have to rely on the House or the Senate to remove a judge since his removal would be foreseen. The Judge could still have the "independence" that all judges seem to require for the limit of his term.
Putting "constructionist" judges on the courts will not guarantee that those judges will remain constructionist ten years later. People change their minds over time, and relying on the "honor" of a judge is madness - we've seen where that leads to.
Impeachment has never worked on the highest court, and has had only limited success on the lower courts. To impeach a sitting judge requires Congress to confront judges, and they seem to have little stomach for that.
Term limits solves a lot of judicial activist problems. It should be considered as a way of ending judicial tyranny.
Yall want to read the best defense from a constitutional viewpoint why they should all be impeached?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380607/posts
Impeach all Judges in the Terri Schiavo Case [MUST READ]
If anyone has word perfect and can convert the file so we can post it in entirety and not just a link to the pdf file please let me know!
We need to email this brilliant piece to everyone we know so they can understand the foundation and necessity of the matter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380607/posts
Excerpt:
"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.
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.
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.
BUMP! And now we need to elect more congresscritters who have the integrity to live up to their oath of office: To defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (read JUDGES!).
Heck, we lost states rights 60 years ago; unelected judges running school districts, three letter federal agencies putting landowners in jail for filling in a ditch or building on their property which is also (maybe) occupied by a tsetse fly. Heck, if the EPA had been around during the era of Walter Reed he'd be serving a life sentence for filling in "wetlands" (i.e. swamps) and we'd be dropping left and right from malaria.
Or here in Texas where old Federal Judge William Wayne "the most hated man in Texas" Justice (now there's a misnamed man if there ever was one) took over the prison system and gave us "Robin Hood" school financing which wasn't stealing from the gubbermint and giving to the poor, it was stealing from anybody and tossing it up a wild hogs butt (aka the teachers union).
But your Judge Clark is a standout, even among all those clowns.
Thomas Jefferson had it right. When the executive and legislative branches are wimps we'd become the victims of a "despotic judiciary".
We need radical surgery.
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.