Impeachment on the 9th Circuit?

June 26th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

I submit that that Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Judge Stephen Reinhardt have not exhibited "good behaviour" in their decision to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Further, I contend that they have exceeded the scope of their Judicial powers, in that they have attempted to shape the Constitution to fit their own predilections, rather than seeking to understand what the Constitution meant with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as the Founders intended, and base their decision accordingly.

In so attempting to modify the U.S. Constitution, Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt have violated Article V, which states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

In so violating the Amendment Process of the US Constitution, and exceeding the vested Judicial Powers of the US Constitution, I contend that Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," and are therefore subject to Impeachment by the US House of Representatives, and removal by the US Senate.

Therefore, I hereby call upon the House and the Senate to perform their duly appointed Constitutional Functions and Impeach Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and remove them from office.

[browardchad]

Once again, the phrase "under God" was codified by the duly elected representatives of the people, the Congress of the United States. It was not done at gunpoint, nor through coercion, but freely and in accordance with the constitution.

[Sabertooth]

Impeaching judges for an unpopular decision? As wrong as most people think the decision was, should that really be the standard for impeachment?

See post #17, from the estimable mrsmith. That's what the Founders intended.

I dont want to start impeaching judges who make unpopular rulings. That is a dangerous slippery slope to get on.

Relax... It's not a slippery slope.

It takes a majority in the House and 67 Senators to Impeach and remove from office. The likelihood that a rogue Legislature would wreak a reign of terror on the Judiciary is slim, and would last, at most, until the next election.

There is a reason the Legislative Branch is first among equals... it's the most accountable to the people, frome whence Constitutional authority is derived.

[4America]

This has gone overboard. 9th Circuit needs to go.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Since judges are acting and assuming the role of legislators it is dangerous to give them life appointments, now if they are willing to limit themselves to the role of judges then life appointments make sense.

[WRhine]

Today Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt met the standard of Impeachment with their unconstitutional decision on the First Amendment as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance. They committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Congress now has a duty to act to reign in the judicial activism these power-grabbing judges represent.

9th Circuit Court Impeachment PING!!!!

[Schatze]

You're probably right. In any case, our representatives need to hear how outraged people are about this stupid decision. I'm sick of these liberal judges deciding to overrule the obvious intentions of the founding fathers and the voters of this country.

It's time for action.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I agree with you, Saber. This Court has exceeded their constitutional authority and now it's up to the legislature to impeach them. They have the power. Judges swore to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.

Oath of office for federal judges: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as [a federal judge] under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Excellent post by the way.

[smalltownguy]

You have got to see this. Some of the posts are nuts, but, there are a couple ideas that may not be all that out of line.

http://www.datalounge.com/data lounge/forums/index.html?threa d=789346&stack=2,2:thread, 1:thread

[trussell]

BUMP

[browardchad]

From the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, citing “Impeachment! Restraining an Overactive Judiciary by David Barton, 1996:

Barton draws on the writings of the Framers as well as other scholars to show that impeachment is a legitimate weapon against "activist" judges. Suitable candidates for impeachment include judges who overturn referendum results or other laws that are supported by the majority of the people and judges who modify jury decisions. Threats of impeachment do not endanger judicial independence, but instead give the public a means to combat judicial tyranny. He also supports impeachments when the chances of conviction are small, "[b]ecause just the process of impeachment serves as a deterrent. A judge, even if he knows that he is facing nothing more than a congressional hearing on his conduct, will usually become much more restrained in order to avoid adding 'fuel to the fire' and thus giving more evidence to the critics calling for his removal."

Without impeachment, we have no means to combat judicial tyranny. Congress needs to be prodded to act.

[gcruse]

I'll check it out. Thanks.

[gcruse]

Hey, that's pretty good. It's nice to know the decision is roiling other groups, and that the opinion elsewhere is not so lopsided as at FR. Thanks for the ping.

[Sabertooth]

This Court has exceeded their constitutional authority and now it's up to the legislature to impeach them. They have the power. Judges swore to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.

And when Judges entrusted to uphold the Constituition, choose instead to subvert it, only the will of the people, as executed by their legislature, can stop judicial tyranny cold.

[Barnacle]

Before putting them to bed, my children and I recited the Pledge of Allegiance - with special emphasis on "One nation under God".

Best regards to you WR.

[Demidog]

The decision was sound. The Pledge of allegiance was not changed to include "under God" until 1954. The pledge itself was crafted by a nationalist/socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy. There is no constitutional provision which would allow anyone to require its recital and plenty to suggest that this shouldn't be happening in our schools.

[Demidog]

Once again, the phrase "under God" was codified by the duly elected representatives of the people, the Congress of the United States.

And by what authority does any entity force someone to recite it?

[Spiff]

Idea for FReeper Activism:

Independence Day is coming. In my area, and I'm sure in many other areas, the fireworks display includes some sort of pre-fireworks programs. In my town, we have the 36th Army Band play a brief concert, have a few fireworks and cannons go off during the 'Overture of 1812' and then we have someone sing the National Anthem right before the fireworks begin.

The program has never included a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before. In light of the disgusting, anti-American decision by the 9th and in my patriotic desire to resist tyranny, I called the director of the fireworks display and suggested he add the Pledge to the program. He loved the idea and the reason behind it! So, in my town thousands of people are going to celebrate their independence on Independence Day by asserting it and reciting the Pledge on city property at a city-sponsored event. You can rest assured that we will emphasize the "under God" portion of the Pledge.

Independence day is fast approaching. Many FReepers plan on attending various 4th of July events to include fireworks displays, etc. Get on the phone now and do as I did and get the full Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at the events in your area.

[Sabertooth]

There is no constitutional provision which would allow anyone to require its recital and plenty to suggest that this shouldn't be happening in our schools.

You got it wrong, DD. The Constitution doesn't "allow," the Constitution is "empowered," by the people.

What the schools do is a matter for the States and their municipalities, as shown by the Tenth Amendment...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Unless you've got a Constitutional provision to the contrary?