"Chose." Not "were compelled."
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.
"Chose." Not "were compelled."
1.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The Democratic National Party is a religion.
Its spiritual members use the government to impose government mandated morality through the "charitable" redistribution of wealth from those that can work to those that cannot.
The Democratic party is un constitutional and needs to be separated from government activities.
So true. To the Democratic ideologues, the party is the highest arbiter of right and wrong. It is their religion, and that places them at odds with the vast majority of Democratic voters who care more about providing for their families than in advancing the fad Democratic causes of homosexuality, abortion, pornography, prostitution, promiscuity, perversion, adultery, sodomy, and obscenity.
Great idea!
Did you see the comments about the Newdow interview this morning. The daughter did NOT find the Pledge distasteful! In fact she recites it verbatim!! It is the father that is playing games and he said so, using the very term "games"!!! (And I am starting to sound like Nitro!!!!)
Newdow's complaint in the district court challenged the constitutionality, under the First Amendment, of the 1954 Act, the California statute, and the school district's policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in recitation of the Pledge.
.................................................................................."Utah"?
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.
Sorry, no. It means no more or less than the federal government may not establish a religion as the official one of the United States. If memory serves, one of the first acts of the first Congress was to fund religious missionaries to hector the Indians.
But if the 9th Circuit finds mentions of God so offensive, perhaps the federal government should withdraw all currency from the states in the 9th Circuit. They get to have our money if and when we decided to delete "In God We Trust." Wouldn't want to offend them.
As far as the legislative branch being "first among equals", there may be some problems convincing the judiciary of that. I believe that it was Chief Justice John Marshall who claimed such primacy for his branch...everyone always jostling for power in this system.
Because the words that amended the Pledge were enacted into law by statute, the district court may not direct Congress to delete those words any more than it may order the President to take such action. All this, of course, is aside from the fact that the President has no authority to amend a statute or declare a law unconstitutional, those functions being reserved to Congress and the federal judiciary respectively.
Newdow nevertheless argues that because the 1954 Act violates the Establishment Clause, Congress should not be protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. This argument misses the jurisdictional, or separation of powers, point. As the Court held in Eastland, in determining whether or not the acts of members of Congress are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, the court looks solely to whether or not the acts fall within the legitimate legislative sphere; if they do, Congress is protected by the absolute prohibition of the Clause against being "questioned in any other Place." Id. at 501. "If the mere allegation that a valid legislative act was undertaken for an unworthy purpose would lift the protection of the Clause, then the Clause simply would not provide the protection historically undergirding it." Id. at 508-09.
Although the district court lacks jurisdiction over the President and the Congress, the question of the constitutionality of the 1954 Act remains before us. While the court correctly dismissed the claim against those parties, it survives against others.
I suppose this would be business as usual to a lawyer, but what bothers me is that court makes its separation of powers argument based on a previous court decision, and not on the Constitution. In other words, the validity of the Constitution itself depends on the interpretation of the court?
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.