Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Devvy Articles:

Vote Fraud: What They Aren't Telling You

Forced Mental Health Screening for Your Children


More Devvy
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

THE HUBRIS OF WILLIAM REHNQUIST

 

 

By: Devvy

January 6, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192

Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued his year end report of the Court which should demonstrate to most Americans that allowing Supreme Court Justices to remain in office for two, three, four decades or longer is a dangerous thing. Rehnquist's comments are transparently self-serving, i.e., "I will also focus on the recently mounting criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as "judicial activism."

It would appear the heat from We the People is finally penetrating the conceit of these self-proclaimed Gods on the throne. The people of this Republic are fed up with federal judges and Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. How many different ways can you interpret the U.S. Constitution that is only a few oversize pages of parchment? The law libraries are full of thousands of books of decisions from the federal judiciary that most Americans can't even understand.

Here is a sampling of Rehnquist's whining:

"III. Criticism of Judges Based on Judicial Acts

"Criticism of judges has dramatically increased in recent years, exacerbating in some respects the strained relationship between the Congress and the federal Judiciary.

"By guaranteeing judges life tenure during good behavior, the Constitution tries to insulate judges from the public pressures that may affect elected officials. The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction. Nevertheless, our government, in James Madison's words, ultimately derives "all powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people." Thus, public reaction to judicial decisions, if it is sustained and widespread, can be a factor in the electoral process and lead to the appointment of judges who might decide cases differently.

"Although arguments over the federal Judiciary have always been with us, criticism of judges, including charges of activism, have in the eyes of some taken a new turn in recent years.....At the same time, there have been suggestions to impeach federal judges who issue decisions regarded by some as out of the mainstream. And there were several bills introduced in the last Congress that would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide constitutional challenges to certain kinds of government action.

"A natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academe, and the public. When federal judges are criticized for judicial decisions and actions taken in the discharge of their judicial duties, however, it is well to remember two principles that have long governed the tenure of federal judges.

"First, Congress's authority to impeach and remove judges should not extend to decisions from the bench." Rehnquist then goes into a long spiel on the Samuel Chase matter saying in part:

"Chase was by no means a model judge, and his acquittal certainly was not an endorsement of his actions. Rather, the Senate's failure to convict him represented a judgment that impeachment should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties. The political precedent set by Chase's acquittal has governed the use of impeachment to remove federal judges from that day to this: a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence -- instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

What Rehnquist is saying is that members of the U.S. Supreme Court can hallucinate any decision they want without fear of removal from the bench. Who made these people God? I can give you three perfect examples of how the U.S. Supreme Court bastardized the U.S. Constitution, although pro-baby killer, pro-sodomy, anti-Christian advocates will disagree:

First, the Everson v. Board of Education decision [330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)] which started this mythical 'separation of church and state' movement. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court which had some rather convoluted language justifying their position:

"The New Jersey statute is challenged as a "law respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, commands that a state "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

The Fourteenth Amendment states in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" The Fourteenth Amendment created a second class of "citizen," an important distinction few people understand. The 1947 Supreme Court took the position that the freedom to worship is a privilege, not a God-given right.

Second, Roe v Wade (1973): The nine member all male court used the 14th Amendment to condone the murder of unborn babies. The majority opinion fell to Blackmun who crafted an opinion which glaringly and miserably failed to identify any specific U.S. constitutional guarantee to justify the court's ruling. Like a magician, he hallucinated up a decision on the right to privacy citing protection of due process under the 14th Amendment. Translated: the court conjured up a right that was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Third, Lawrence v Texas (2003). In this case, the question to the court was due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment regarding a Texas statute that made it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate conduct (sodomy). Once again, the Supreme Court not only came up with one of the most convoluted, toxic decisions of the past century, it went much deeper than that. This was an all out attack on states' rights.

As a side note that so few Americans seem to care anything about - amendments to the U.S. Constitution that were clearly not ratified, i.e., the Sixteenth and Seventeenth; I also strongly believe there clearly exists sufficient proof that the Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified. On December 10, 1995, a document authored by retired Judge Lander H. Perez of Louisiana was submitted to the U.S. Congress. This document purported that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution "is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional" for a long list of valid reasons. Perez' presentation is quite compelling.

It goes without saying that judges and Supreme Court Justices should not be influenced by every special interest group in the country. But, when they ignore the Constitution and issue decisions that clearly comes into conflict with that document, leaving them on the bench is equivalent to letting an employee who steals remain on the job. Why should federal or Supreme Court judges receive blanket immunity for lifetime appointments no matter how destructive their decisions?

In Dr. Edwin Vieira's brilliant work, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, this notion of lifetime appointments and renegade decisions is a fabrication supported only by the parasites who benefit:

"Article III does explicitly provide that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." In other words, judges can be expelled from office by means other than impeachment. Section Two of Article III states:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Judges are not above the Constitution

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

Referring back to How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, "It is pure myth that the Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Article VI makes clear that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the Land...and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." In other words, the Judiciary is under the Constitution and not over it."

These contumacious, arrogant federal judges have been jailing Americans over the income tax issue, treaty based environmental issues which have destroyed the livelihood of thousands of Americans, giving illegal aliens invading our nation "constitutional rights," and shredding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The Supreme Court Justices for decades have refused to hear critical cases, i.e. the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and instead, have allowed the Department of Justice and the IRS destroy the lives of innocent Americans. And now the Chief Justice who has been sitting on the bench for 32 years, 11 months and 28 days is whining because the people are demanding their removal? Rehnquist shouldn't worry - no Congress over the past 100 years has had the stones to remove but a couple federal judges and since the American people just voted back in the same gutless wonders to serve in Congress, it's likely judicial terror will continue to reign over We the People.

2005 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty, which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Has been a guest more than 1600 times on radio shows, ran for Congress twice and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com Devvy's web site is: www.devvy.com; is sponsored by El Dorado Gold; e-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

These contumacious, arrogant federal judges have been jailing Americans over the income tax issue, treaty based environmental issues which have destroyed the livelihood of thousands of Americans, giving illegal aliens invading our nation "constitutional rights,"