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.

[Sabertooth]

The Founding Fathers created a Constituion with a system of checks and balances.

We do not have three independent branches of government, we have three interdependent branches of government. It was never the intent of the Founders for a rogue judiciary to have no means of correction other than itself. Therefore, they gave the Legislative Branch, the elected representatives of the people, the power of Impeachment.

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.

The people are outraged. The Politicians are outraged. The President is outraged.

These judges must be Impeached.

If not now, when?

[Sabertooth]

(((ping))))

[nepdap]

Some clever freeper pointed out on another thread that these justices (presumably) took their oath on a Bible. Hmmmm. . . Do THEY personally trust in the authority of God, or not? Do they acknowledge at least a ceremonial assent to God's role in political life? If not, is their oath (and their seat on the bench) invalid?

[Oregon Coast Conservative]

Bump

[Colombia59]

Impeach Senator Jim Jeffords too, he lied to the voters to get into power as a Republican and then changed sides. This gave the demacrooks in the Senate the power to stop all Bush judicial appointees. As a result we have 80 year old senile judges making these kinds of decisions. Barbara Boxer and Diana Feinstein must be really happy with what they have put on this court.

[gcruse]

 
The original Pledge of Allegiance seemed to suffice
for almost two hundred years...

Then something happened unique in the history of
the nation: Americans grew frightened.
Perhaps it was the knowledge that a bomb
which they had invented could be used against
their own children. Perhaps it was the political
demagogery of a man named Joe McCarthy.
Whatever the reason, by the early 1950's
the people and their leaders had forgotten
why they had fought two World Wars, why
their forebearers had fled England, and
why the Bill Of Rights had been written.
 
 

[Schatze]

You know it's bad when even tiny Tommy Daschle finds the decision "insane." Where do I sign to get these immoral creeps impeached?

[muawiyah]

To be charitable, the two judges who voted for this offensive decision have been around a long time and are probably suffering from Alzheimers or other dementia.

As a consequence, their "behavior" is no longer "good". Clearly impeachment is called for if they refuse to step down! Dr. Michael A. Newdow seems to have moved around the country to find a place where his suit would be welcomed. His problem isn't dementia - .......

[Ahban]

BUMP

[Sabertooth]

Then something happened unique in the history of the nation: Americans grew frightened. Perhaps it was the knowledge that a bomb which they had invented could be used against their own children. Perhaps it was the political demagogery of a man named Joe McCarthy. Whatever the reason, by the early 1950's the people and their leaders had forgotten why they had fought two World Wars, why their forebearers had fled England, and why the Bill Of Rights had been written.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was not written to preclude the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You're aware, I'm sure, that the Framers held that rights were endowed by our Creator?

How can the mention of God, our Creator, violate a right endowed by God, our Creator?

[sarasmom]

BTTT

[Sabertooth]

You know it's bad when even tiny Tommy Daschle finds the decision "insane." Where do I sign to get these immoral creeps impeached?

Start by bumping this thread and pinging your friends.

[maestro]

??.....What states are included within the 9th...???

[medved]

How can the mention of God, our Creator, violate a right endowed by God, our Creator?

The people who promulgate this kind of BS believe that we are meat byproducts of stochastic processes (the ideological doctrine of evolutionism). You have to assume that colors their "thinking" somewhat...

[browardchad]

The original Pledge of Allegiance seemed to suffice for almost two hundred years...

There was no "original" Pledge of Allegiance. Francis Bellamy a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. Congress (our elected representatives) added "under God" to the Pledge in 1954.

[bluecollarman]

Ban The 9th Circuit Hat

[mrsmith]

The Federalist #81: "There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body is possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations"

Conversely... If their 'presumption' goes ever unpunished- it will never stop.

[gcruse]

Quite so, thanks. Call it the traditional pledge, then. And it was fine for half a century until the Knights of Columbus got this idea...

[WRhine]

You know it's bad when even tiny Tommy Daschle finds the decision "insane."

I beg to differ with you there. I seriously doubt Daschle or Hitlery or even a majority of the democratic senators have any real problems with the insane 9th circuit court's decision outside of the political dynamic. No, this anti-American bunch are smart enough to understand that by not showing outrage at what this court did in post 9/11 America would most definitely jeopardize their party's fortunes in November. And they are right. It would. Chalk it up to having a good sense of political survival.