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.
...snort!
Nonsense.
The First Amendment says...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"What part of of the meaning of "Congress" is so elusive to you?
The First Amendment has no application to a dispute between a private individual and a school, delusions of the rogue judiciary notwithstanding.
So it is your belief then that the "right" to free speech can only be defended against the Congress? States may abridge free speech and religious practice all they want?
Interesting. Since Congress cannot pass a law that covers a citizen that lives within the 50 states, what kind of protection is that?
You are right on. Thanks for your post.
I believe we must take every means to get back to the essence of the Constitution as it was written and not be enslaved by the latter interpreted morass.
Nothing here, move along....
Dunno. Depends on the Constitutions of those states, and the will of the people living in them. That's called "freedom."
You don't like the Tenth Amendment, do you?
Right it was his daughter that was in school. At any rate, the "under God" was an addition by Congress. Even laying aside nonsense that the tenth amendment gives States the power to infringe upon our rights, Congress was forbidden to dictate that those words be included in the pledge. Besides which, the pledge itself, even without those words, was a creation of socialists who wanted to indoctrinate children with the philosophy of nationalism. Congress has no authority to set the agenda of public schools since their jurisdiction is limited to DC and the insular territories.
I happen to have read it and understand its meaning. It does not give power to the states. It reserves power for the people and the states and acknowledges that all power is derived from the people. Since the bill of rights RESERVED certain rights for the people, the States nor the Congress had authority to usurp those rights.
The States could not reserve power to itself that was already reserved to the people. Any other reading would be absurd. Under your proposition, a State, if it simply refused to recognize that people had inalienable rights, could simply leave out any mention of them in the State constitution and thereby do whatever it wished including murder its own citizens with impunity.
Preposterous.
Demidog, the lawyer. *Sigh*
The whiney-butt atheist weasel claimed it violated his daughter's constitutional rights because, even though she wasn't forced to recite the pledge, she could hear the other students recite it.
Let me pose a query to you, O Flea Bailey. If the other students were to recite the pledge in a language she couldn't understand--French, say--would her pappy have standing?
Atheism: improving the human condition by scrubbing the public fora free of God and duct-taping the mouths of Christian believers.
How do you reconcile that with your expansive reading of the Establishment Clause?
Why did Congress make specific reference to Congress in the Establishment Clause? The made no such reference in the 2nd Amendment.
Congress dictated nothing to the school or to the student, they simply modified the pledge.
Let me ask you, since our rights are "endowed by our Creator," how can the mention of God, our Creator, violate a right endowed by God, our Creator?
It cannot. But Congress by the same token is forbidden from endorsing a religion. While it is patently absurd to think that hearing offensive speech is a violation of somebody's rights (in general) consider that the girl in question is forced to listen when under normal circumstances she could simply avoid speech she finds distasteful. Schools are mandatory. That in and of itself is completely violative of freedom. The pledge is a silly little set of words that have no value to this society with or without the words "under God." For the first 100 years of our existence, we didn't have one and didn't need one.
Change that to jingoists and I won't get mean.
Yeah. And they chose to abandon the practice. Good call since the right to worship or not is reserved to the people and is not a power States can reserve for themselves. It's already taken.
Simply? They added a religious oath against the better judgment of The Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law", right?
Though it disappoints me, the ruling is just.
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.