Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached ^ | 07/04/03 | Jeff Johnson.

Posted on 07/05/2003 8:52:56 PM PDT by furnitureman

Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached The nation's self-proclaimed third largest political party Thursday called for the impeachment of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn a Texas law banning homosexual sodomy. One legal expert responded that the prospect of impeaching justices for political decisions was settled nearly 200 years ago.

James Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee, called the court's decision "an affront to the very foundation" of the U.S. Constitution.

"It also shows blatant disregard for the people of various states and the laws their representatives have lawfully enacted," Clymer continued.

"Those members of the court who have so brazenly exercised illicit judicial authority should have to face the consequences of their actions which are violations of the Constitution, something they took an oath to uphold," he said.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens voted to strike down the Texas law and, Clymer said, should be removed from the court as a result.

The Constitution Party, which claims it is America's third largest political party in terms of actual voter registration, embraces the view that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights mean precisely what they say and that only their application, not meaning, should be subject to interpretation by the courts.

The group believes the decision is an unconstitutional encroachment upon powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States..."

"In other words," Clymer explained, "if a state is exercising a power reserved to it - like defining, establishing and applying its own laws pertaining to criminal justice - then the federal courts are supposed to maintain a hands-off attitude and uphold the state's right to do so."

He points to Article III Section 1 of the Constitution, which established the "supreme Court," as giving the grounds for impeachment.

"Contrary to popular belief, the justices of the Supreme Court do not have life tenure," Clymer argued. "Instead, the Constitution states that they are to serve 'during good behavior,' and this ruling is a prime example of what truly bad judicial behavior is."

He believes the intent of the "good behavior" clause was to ensure that judges would "maintain fidelity to the Constitution, the law and the highest of ethical standards during the conduct of their work.

"Their failure to do so is supposed to disqualify them from continued service on the bench, and Congress has the duty to see that this requirement is enforced, if those principles are seriously violated, through the mechanism of impeachment," Clymer concluded.

While Clymer's contentions may hold up in theory, Beau Baez, a professor of law with Concord School of Law in Los Angeles, told that there is "practically zero chance" of a politically motivated impeachment succeeding.

"Thomas Jefferson tried it back in 1805 with another associate justice at the time - his name was Samuel Chase - primarily over a political squabble," Baez noted.

President George Washington appointed Chase, who was from Maryland, in 1796. At Jefferson's urging, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Chase, but the Senate refused to convict him.

"Ever since," Baez explained, "impeaching justices for unpopular opinions has pretty much been dead."

For a Supreme Court justice to actually face removal by the Senate, Baez added, would take much more than even a universally unpopular decision.

"It would probably take being convicted of a criminal act - like murder, fraud, theft - and then the justice refusing to resign," he said. "But I think if it's [an action] within their 'jurisdiction,' writing a legal opinion, expounding on the Constitution, it really becomes a political question."

At that point, Baez said, the political party in power would have to decide whether or not it wanted to risk retaliation from the current minority party in the future.

"One party may be in power today and may be able to boot a justice from the other party," he said. "But then, of course, four years or eight years later, it may be reversed.

"It's a dangerous game," Baez concluded, "because what goes around comes around."

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitutionlist; constitutionparty; impeachscotus; sasu; scotus; scotuslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: Cultural Jihad
You are trying to force others to live by your version of morality. You have described it as religion-based. You are welcome to prostelytize that all you want, but we are talking about the use of government power to imprison people and fortunately the government is prohibited from taking your side. That is a relief to the rest of the citizens that oppose jihadists such as yourself.

Your whole view of "jailing them with kindness" to have your vesrion of a moral society is anathema to freedom. This last point is why you have been, are, and apparently will continue to be wrong. You have your values reversed when it comes to your expectations of the role of government.

Whoever thought up the term "tyranny of the majority" must have been reading your posts.

61 posted on 07/06/2003 3:03:15 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: breakem
Non-believers are not free to lie, to cheat, to steal, to rob, to rape, to murder. If this is forcing beliefs upon people, then so be it.
62 posted on 07/06/2003 3:05:17 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: All
Do y'all remember which ex-President (when he was a congressman) called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren?
63 posted on 07/06/2003 3:06:14 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (Summertime!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The crimes you listed have been illegal in most cultures throughout history, pagan and otherwize and woh here argues for them not to remain illegal, no one. You know where I draw the line, why do keep arguing old business. No one is arguing it should be legal to steal, rape, and murder.

I have been through this a dozen times with you including the night you ran away after I showed why half of the ten commandments shouldn't and wouldn't be codified.

The fact that you can't distinguish between personal behavior and hurting others is astonishing given the hundreds of time the distinction has been made for you.

I don't know what kind of bizarro civic class you took in school, but I know I run out of patience easilly trying to yell louder and louder the same information over and over. I'm out and..........Let Freedom Ring!

64 posted on 07/06/2003 3:11:06 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: breakem
So has homosexual sodomy been proscribed for thousands of years in every society's religion which has a sexual ethic. Since homosexual sodomy destroys both the soul and the body, it is a form of murder.
65 posted on 07/06/2003 3:15:13 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: breakem
as opposed to your tyranny of the minority I suppose? You have every right to move to a state where the laws reflect your values- and we ALL have the right to order our society on the values we hold dear. This is a lot better than your version of "liberty" by which five far away judicail tyrants tell every locality how they can order their own communities.

Your version of "liberty" bears a striking resemblance to a totalitarian dictatorship.

You libertines keep repeating the same tired errors, so I am just gonna go ahead and refute them all right now....

Myth One: Decisions between two consenting adults is their own business, and the government should stay out of people's bedrooms.

The biggest threat to our country is not people who want to legislate morality, its those who are destroying our culture with immorality.

I have a thought experiment that should highlight what is at stake.....

Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved.

In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting, except for those engaging in polygamy. We are all consenting adults here, right?

Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Whose children will be most emotionally stable? Which people will be happier, more free, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.

What I just described with the two nations is just what the founders proposed with the several states. Let each make its own laws and see which one produces the better society. That is real 'diversity'. Secularists idea of diversity is to have Federal Storm Troopers going to public places around the country to tear down plaques of the Ten Commandments, but permitting us to replace them with pictures of two homosexuals engaging in anal sex! Welcome to 'diversity', Amerika style.

Myth Two : Sodomy Laws are a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution.

Sheesh, people don't know what 'due process' is, even judges.
I agree that due process must be upheld, but there was due process in this case. The judges are supposed to make sure the arrest and conviction procedures are the same for all groups, not decide which groups activities should be legal or illegal.

For example, if the law said that homosexuals could not testify in court, or that it was ok for vigilantes to beat them up, or that it was OK to use evidence obtained without a warrant if the charge is sodomy, then that law should be thrown out. They would not be getting due process. What should not be thrown out, is laws against specific behaviors. It is up to each state to decide what should be legal or illegal. Don't give me that hokem about legislating morality. All laws are legislated morality- that is a primary function of law.

Due process is using the same legal procedures for all groups, even groups of criminals. Plus, 17 years ago the Supreme Court decided that laws against sodomy were reasonable, now they decide they are not? This argument destroys all basis for a fixed standard of law, without which we shall descend into ever increasing chaos.

It is true that some actions of the federal government must be done in a reasonable manner (i.e. no "unreasonable search and seizure",) but that has no impact on what the state might be searching for. Could be crack, child porn, moonshine, Cuban cigars, whatever. In this case they had a bogus report of a crime when the police burst in, but they had reasonable cause to bust in. They are in error when they claim that every law passed by every state is subject to change as soon as a new court takes over and redefines the law as "arbitrary" and "unreasonable".

Original intent is important here. Not one of the founders who drafted the constitution, or those who passed the 14th amendment, intended to stop states from passing laws against sodomy (what the majority of their citizens knew to be sinful behaviors). Not one. I defy anyone- including the justices who ruled in this case. Show me from their writings that this is what they intended! Liberty is not license. Every state in the union had what some call 'sin laws' on the books regarding 'private' behavior, including sodomy laws, and none of the founders spoke out against them.

Myth Three: Ok, but it violated the Constitutions clause on "Equal Protection" under the law, because it was ok for a man and woman to something that it was illegal for a man to do to a man. That's not 'equal protection'.

(Rolling eyes here at liberal ignorance and stupidity) Words mean things. "Equal" means something. It means "of the same value". Two men having sex may be "equivalent" to a man and a woman having sex, but it is not "equal".

To be consistent with this thinking- consistent in leading our society down into a debauched moral cesspool, one would also have to claim that the equal protection clause was written to protect polygamy, incest, prostitution, adultery, and perhaps even bestiality and necrophilia if the owners sign the right papers first.....Such people should take a good look at how much destruction they are willing to unleash to justify their ungodliness. They should not be surprised that the responsible among us unite to rebuke them.

Equal protection means just that, protection. It has nothing to do with what activities the law condemns. It has everything to do with the government protecting the victims of those crimes by punishing those who victimized them. If crimes against blacks or gays were not investigated, or prosecuted, then they don't have equal protection and the feds could step in.

Again, there is no way on Earth the Founders / writers of the 14th amendment intended the equal protection clause, or the due process clause, to enable sodomy. Its absurd. Insisting that is what it means in no way changes the facts of original intent.

Myth Four: but it did violate their constitutional "right to privacy"!

That one is a myth alright. Their is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. There is a guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure". This is about the same thing as a "right to privacy", but there is a big difference. The first says that the government cannot investigate you unless their is reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. The second is a contrived fiction that says "some things, we elites don't allow the people to call crimes". Its used by the court as a "get out of jail free" card for crimes that they consider "private matters" (like butchering an unborn baby"). For these favored crimes, the very act of catching you committing a crime seems to be proof that the state was watching you too closely! Drug dealers would love such reasoning to be applied to their cases!

At the whim of the court, certain actions are deemed to be "private matters" subject only to the autonomous will of the individuals involved. Such acts are deemed to be outside the purview of law regardless of the corrosive effect they have on society, and regardless of the will of the people.

The conservative may think, "Good, the individual is above the state!". Wrong. The state is above the individual who cannot not live with other like-minded individuals to order their society the way they think best. The state's version of morality triumphs over yours in this model.

By the way, "Hate Crimes" legislation will still be enforced by the courts, punishing you for your presumed thoughts, intents, and motives. Somehow, these are not considered "private matters" by the court. Yet when a homosexual college professor with an IQ of 120 seduces a student with an IQ of 92 it is a "private" matter. When a woman goes to an abortion clinic and has an abortionist rip up her baby the transaction between the three of them is a "private matter". As these examples show, the "Right to Privacy" has nothing at all to do with privacy, and everything to do with a secular state making war on traditional morality.

So what about solutions?

A lot of people have suggested reasonable short term solutions, such as a Marriage Amendment, or Congress taking the ability to rule on certain matters out of the court's hands, or even impeachment of judges who are becoming more and more tyrannical and out of step with those they are supposed to serve.

In the long run though, the best answer is to put back in a counterweight to federal encroachment of the several States that was lost when we went to direct election of Senators. When the state legislators picked senators, you could be sure that those Senators only chose judges who would respect the right of states to make their own laws. Repeal of the amendment calling for direct election of senators is thus a possible solution. More likely though, is to get an amendment passed that reads thus...

Supreme court justices shall be picked by the President, with the advice and consent of a majority of the Governors of the Several States, such judges to serve during period of good behavior for terms of ten years, subject to renewal by the same process.

This would end a lot of abuses.
66 posted on 07/06/2003 3:17:23 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; Admin Moderator
Hmmm. Your tagline reads "(insulting True Conservatives and disrupting their mental self abuse in two millennia)".

I will take that as a confession. You are a disruptor. That would certainly explain your posts.
67 posted on 07/06/2003 3:20:18 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Why don't you ask him about it instead of running to momma? Palpatine is not a disruptor just because YOU disagree with him.


68 posted on 07/06/2003 3:27:59 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No, he isn't a disruptor just because I disagree with him, but he is a disruptor. In his tagline he admits he is here to disrupt, and that is what he has been doing, day after day, thread after thread. His actions and posts match his tag line. He is no conservative, that is for sure, not anymore than the movie character for which he is named.

If you would think about it, the character Chancellor Palaptine is a "disruptor" in the movie. He pretends to stand for one thing, but really represents another. He is not there to save the Republic, but undermine it. Were I a disruptor, I could see picking a name like that.

What are we supposed to do when we find a disruptor, wait for Tom Dashcle to fix it?
69 posted on 07/06/2003 6:19:57 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
What are we supposed to do when we find a disruptor, wait for Tom Dashcle to fix it?

He's not a disruptor. Take on his arguments, if you can.

Is FR just a place for everybody to high-five each other?

I've been here five years, and I frequently disagree with lots of people about lots of things.

Trying to get people banned because you don't agree with them is cowardly. He doesn't use profanity, doesn't engage in personal attacks, and doesn't advocate violence.

I say, take him on, or just bypass his posts. I do lots of that.

70 posted on 07/06/2003 6:27:51 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Duramaximus
What I see in about 30 years is me with a couple of friends sitting on my deck, reminissing about the days of the "Old Republic." There are times when I'm not sure if I want to reach the "pants pulled up to my chest" stage of life.
71 posted on 07/06/2003 9:08:19 PM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Made up rights? Who says the rights enumerated in the BOR are the only ones? You?

Or you sir? Or 6 people in black robes? You have yet to offer anything besides assertion to indicate that homosexual conduct is a right protected by the 9th amendment. If you are so certain,you must have some evidence beyond mere assertion. You have completely ignored the harm it can do to society as a whole. Wether you want to look at the Declaration of Independence, or the Preamble to the Constition, you can find evidence that government is not just about protecting individual rights, it's also about "The General Welfare", "domestic Tranquility", and "the public good". Where is your evidence that anyone prior to 1791 and after the fall of Rome, thought that homosexual acts were among the "rights ... retained by the people" to use the words of the 9th amendment.

Certainly there are more "inalienable rights" than those listed in the Bill of Rights, or in the entire Constitution for that matter, the right to travel for example. But you can't just make up rights to suit yourself and your individual beliefs either.

72 posted on 07/07/2003 3:33:43 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
You might have meant to direct that post to someone else, for I agree with you.
73 posted on 07/07/2003 4:18:39 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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