Posted on 06/26/2002 7:53:53 PM PDT by 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.
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
The phrase prohibits Congress, and therefore the Federal government, from making any laws regarding religion. That right was left to the individual states, many of which had been settled by those fleeing religious persecution, and those states had established religions at the time of the revolution. The founders therefore meant to prohibit the federal government from meddling in religion.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is not found, nor implied in the First Amendment. It is the result of years of twisted interpretation by the judiciary.
The matter of the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress was not, nor was it intended to be, establishment of a religion; it was merely the continuation of our founders and American society's traditional belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence.
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." - George Washington, 1st President of the United States.
DITTO !!!!
No one is forced to recite it. This case is not about being forced to recite the Pledge -- it is about the recitation of the pledge, period. The SCOTUS has ruled previously that any child can refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
By impeaching the judges Bush et al won't advance judicial nominees. Better to punch the issue of "our judges wouldn't make this mistake."
That is right. The time has come to take bold action ourselves. Our "so-called" leaders such as Trent Lott has failed to lead. It is time for us to show the right way!
Before it's too late.
God Save America! (please)
You're right. My mistake. 'Only' since 1892.
But thanks for the gratuitous slap, anyway.
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.
This has to be the most raped and pillaged admendment of the entire Constitution.
To even cite it anymore is to pay homage to the dearly departed. It is toothless.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist led the dissent (with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas). They concluded that the majority not only ``distorted existing precedent'' but added a measure of ``hostility to all things religious in public life.'' …. As Mr. Justice Rehnquist put it, ``Neither the holding nor the tone of the (majority) opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of `public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.''' ……”
The constitution protects our citizens from being forced into doing something unless they've been accused of a crime. One is not required to pledge the allegiance and any attempt is a violation of common sense and the right to practice their religion as they see fit. This includes the right NOT to worship a God.
The tenth amendment does not give the States license to violate rights.
If this is true then the fellow would have no standing in a court of law. Obviously he had standing else the court wouldn't have heard his case.
What got this guy's panties in a bunch is that his daughter had to listen to other people utter the word "God."
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.