Time: Wed Apr 09 05:12:57 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA00593; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 05:06:20 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA05118; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 05:06:15 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 05:09:10 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Let the Impeachments Begin (fwd) <snip> > >MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS > >Dear M R, > Our old friend L. Neil Smith writes to Vin, "I've forwarded this excellent >column of yours to Newt Gingrich and _strongly_ urge everybody else on the >bleeding planet to do the same." > It seemed like a good idea to me, so I sent it to the Hon. Newt Gingrich >at <georgia6@hr.house.gov>. Perhaps you'll want to do the same. > >-- Harvey > ========================================== > > FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 16, 1997 > THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz > Let the impeachments begin > > Leaders of 76 national, state and local bar associations issued a joint >letter to House Speaker New Gingrich April 6, urging the Speaker to resist >any efforts to impeach federal judges over disagreements with their >rulings. > > The lawyers' groups wrote: "The genius of the American system of >government is the careful balance created by the founders between the three >branches of government. Moving to impeach judges for individual decisions >-- a kind of legislative referendum on judicial decision-making -- >threatens to destroy this delicately crafted balance." > > The bar associations' letter apparently comes in response to a call last >month from House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, that Congress should >indeed impeach federal judges whose rulings are "particularly egregious." > > It's a striking image: a star chamber assembly-line for the removal of >judges, systematically defrocking the ministers of the bench for making up >the law as they go along. > > Let's get concerned when they've dismissed the first 50 ... with no >pensions. > > More interesting is this oft-repeated assertion that the "delicate >balance of powers" is now operating as intended by the Founders. > > How absurd. > > Mightier than any federal authority, in the scheme of the founders, were >the sovereign state legislatures, empowered to appoint U.S. senators to >veto any federal attempt to assume coercive powers over the states beyond >those specified in the 431 words of Article I, Section 8 of the >Constitution. > > That "check and balance" went a-glimmering in 1913, of course. Shall we >now count the number of things our state legislatures need "federal >permission" to undertake? > > But even above the states were the people, authorized by the Second >Amendment to keep their arms, not for "sporting use," but as a specific >guarantee that any potential federal tyrant would always face the prospect >of a populace too well-armed -- with "assault weapons" -- to tolerate any >usurpation of our liberties. > > Beyond that, the people were granted the final veto over any attempt by >government to deprive a fellow citizen of his life, liberty, or property, >when the Sixth Amendment guaranteed that "in all criminal prosecutions," >the defendant could be convicted only by unanimous vote of an "impartial >jury," randomly selected from the local populace. > > Does anyone still believe our federal officials have no intention of >disarming citizens who might resist federal tyranny? How many of the 20,000 >gun control laws enacted in the past 65 years have been tossed out by these >proud courts? How many armed militiamen summarily set free (and their guns >returned) on a plain reading of the Second Amendment? > > Are we still better armed than the federals -- or do we now cower in fear >of the knock on the door by the ATF, the DEA ... the IRS? > > How many federal agents who swarmed out to murder armed but peaceful >citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco have been indicted and tried for those >crimes, by these attorneys and judges who now blubber so earnestly about >the "delicately crafted" balance of powers? > > Under current Supreme Court rulings, do defendants still get their >guaranteed jury trial "in (start ital)all(end ital) criminal prosecutions"? > > When we now accept, as routine, weeks of careful pre-screening of >prospective jurors (witness the Oklahoma City bombing case) to make sure >all will agree in advance to employ the death penalty, does this encourage >jurors to enter the jury box under a "presumption of innocence"? > > Can a jury still be said to be a "random and impartial" cross-section of >the community, when any honest enough to admit they despise federal gun >controls, or the federal tax system, or the government murders at Waco, are >summarily dismissed; when the panel is carefully stacked to contain only >those who will swear in advance an oath of obedience to the federal judge, >to "accept and enforce the law as I give it to you" -- when they're sifted >so fine that they must even explain the meaning of the bumperstickers on >their cars? > > Ah, this proud federal judiciary. How long has it been since they ruled >that (start ital)any(end ital) expansion of the federal welfare/police >state exceeded constitutional authority -- that (start ital)any(end ital) >gang of federal bureaucrats must be immediately disbanded and turned out >to fend for themselves? Sixty years? How wonderful, that the federal >government could grow to 20 times its previous size, without ever assuming >a single power not specified in those 431 little words. > > As impeachment is the only means by which a judge can be held >accountable, would it really be such a bad thing if a few ambitious lawyers >were thus called down from their high seats, put under a hot light, and >asked to explain how their rulings to date reflect the sacred oath they all >took to protect and defend our inconvenient Constitution ... the >abandonment of which oath, surely, is as much a "high crime and >misdemeanor" -- every bit as dangerous to the future of the Republic -- as >handing over the plans of West Point to the Redcoats? > >Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas >Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web >site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The >column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media >Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. > >*** > > >Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com > >Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration 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 ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail