Time: Mon Jul 14 21:37:17 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15055;
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:21:57 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA13478;
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:21:20 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 21:21:00 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Big-Brotherism" and Constitutional Rights (fwd)
<snip>
>
> The Lincoln Heritage Institute is submitting this article on
>"Big-brotherism" and Constitutional Rights. If more information is
>desired,
>please see our home page at http://members.aol.com/lhiadmof or e-mail
> lhiadmof@aol.com.
>
>"Its "We the People...", Not 'We The Judges'
>By C. Grady Drago, President
>Lincoln Heritage Institute
>
>"We the people of the United States..." was the focus of the efforts to
>draft and the procedure for adoption of our Constitution. The Bill of
>Rights, insuring individual rights against the threats of a national
>government, was absolutely necessary to the preservation of the
>Constitution. "...government of the people, by the people, for the
>people,
>shall not perish from the earth." was stated by President Lincoln at
>Gettysburg, but was really his dream. The concerns for the protection of
>the
>individual against the abuses of an all powerful government, was the
>result
>of the first hand knowledge of our founders. The outline of powers and
>structure of government written into the Constitution was not an
>accident,
>and in a single sentence, Abraham Lincoln captured the meaning.
>
> Unfortunately, the methods used today by liberals and elitists to
>centralize
> more power in Washington is at times brilliant. One of their most
>effective
>tools is a corps of activist federal judges that have raised "judicial
>activism" to new heights. The result of activist courts has perhaps done
>more than anything else to add to creeping 'big brotherism.'
>
> "We've seen judges overturn cases based on the flimsiest of circumstances
>simply to further their own political views." U.S. Representative Sam
>Johnson
>of Texas wrote in a recent article appearing in the ADDRESS. "The
>Constitution grants Congress the sole discretion to determine what
>constitutes an impeachable offense." The pursuit of personal agendas
>based
>upon what a judge thinks the Constitution should have said should be an
>impeachable offense.
>
> Forcing the imposition of taxes; instituting legislative measures;
> establishing public policy; and overturning the will of the people as
>expressed in a state-wide referendum are contrary to the implied and
>express
>authorities granted by the Constitution.
>
> "We believe the American people have a right to know when non-elected
>federal judges attempt to further their own personal and political views
>by
>legislating from the bench and overturning direct elections."
>
> Examples of judges abusing their offices are legion, some are: Judge
>Thelton Henderson in California overturning the result of a state-wide
>referendum; and Judge Fred Biery in Texas disallowing 800 military
>absentee
>ballots which decided an election. Judge Russell Clark, in 1987 ruled
>that
>the Kansas City school system impose a tax increase to pay for his court
>ordered desegregation ruling. "Two billion dollars later, the Kansas City
>school system is no better off. The money was not used for
>desegregation."
>These are just a few examples.
>
> Our desire for equality of opportunity for all of our citizens and for
>the
>protection of our other personal rights as we individually see it has
>absolutely nothing to do with the correctness or justifiability of this
>type
>of judicial ruling. The problem is there is no unanimity of agreement on
>theses issues, which is why our Constitution does not grant this type of
>power to any non-elected government employee. Only voting by citizens and
>votes of their elected representatives have this power and are the only
>legal
>alternative.
>
> Johnson supports the massive undertaking of Congressman Henry Hyde,
>Chairman
>of the House Judiciary Committee, to correct these Constitutional
>atrocities
>undertaken by activist judges. Chairman Hyde has introduced the Judicial
>Reform Act of 1997 in an effort to protect our rights and to restoring
>confidence in our Judicial system. (See Volume V, bk 3 issue of the
>ADDRESS.)
>
> Johnson ended by writing, "The American people are tired of non-elected
>judges trampling all over the Constitution. The time has come for
>Congress
>to step in and end the stronghold that the supposedly Constitutionally
>weakest branch of government has on American democracy. The time has
>come to
>end judicial activism."
>
<snip>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail