Time: Sat Apr 12 23:41:55 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA23650;
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:53:24 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02033;
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:53:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:40:53 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: History Supports Impeachment of Judges (fwd)
<snip>
>
>[Article follows below]
>
>Dear Harvey,
>
>On the subject of impeaching judges, constitutional historian and
>president
>of WallBuilders, David Barton, wrote an excellent little paperback last
>year titled, "Impeachment! Restraining an Overactive Judiciary." It is a
>wealth of information about the history of judicial impeachment in
>America.
>
>The book over reads:
>
> In *Impeachment! Restraining an Overactive Judiciary,* David Barton
> illustrates the current extremes of judicial activism and discusses
> the constitutional process of removing reprobate judges from office
> - using the only means designated by the Founding Fathers. With
> concise clarity, Barton describes the historical perspective on
> impeachment, and aptly compares the current misconceptions on
> impeachable offenses with the Constitution's original intentions.
> *Impeachment* presents the reader a workable solution for restoring
> justice to the American courtroom.
>
> Impeachment is the inevitable result of a clash between servant and
> master - between a judge and the law. *Impeachment* is the answer to
> a judical branch that is out of control.
>
>You may contact WallBuliders at:
>
> WallBuilders, Inc.
> P.O. Box 397
> Aledo, Texas 76008
> (817) 441-6044
> http://christiananswers.net/wall/wallhome.html
>
>Everything that comes out of WallBuilders if first rate and well
>researched.
>
>-Tom in Texas <GvMeLbty@tnis.net>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Subject: History Supports Impeachment of Judges
>
>HISTORY SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES
>
>March 14, 1997
>by: Paul M. Weyrich
>
>The pages of the papers these days are filled with stories about the
>capitulation of what was once called the conservative revolution.
>Republicans collapsing on the National Endowment for the Arts.
>Conservatives retreating on tax cuts. Conservatives giving up on trying
>to
>cut federal spending. Republicans unable to stop Anthony Lake as CIA
>Director. On and on it goes, day after day after day. This is a movement
>within a party which is in wholesale retreat.
>
>That is why it was culture shock to see the House Majority Whip, Tom
>DeLay,
>take a bold, offensive move the other day by announcing that he is
>preparing bills of impeachment against activist federal judges. DeLay
>especially targeted a federal judge in Texas who declared some local
>elections void because the Republicans who had won the offices did so
>with
>the assistance of absentee ballots cast by military personnel serving
>overseas.
>
>By discussing the impeachment of a federal judge for something other than
>looting the treasury, DeLay sent shock waves through the legal community.
>The American Bar Association denounced the idea as having a chilling
>effect
>on the federal judiciary. [Not a bad idea when you come to think of it.]
>Others said this was political interference in the judicial process.
>
>Well, guess what. DeLay has a better knowledge of history and of the
>intent
>of the founding fathers than do his critics. In fact, the idea of
>impeaching federal judges was made constitutional by our founding fathers
>precisely because they wanted Congress to have a political remedy for a
>judiciary which got out of control. They understood very well, having
>been
>victims of arbitrary and capricious justice, why it was necessary to
>provide for a mechanism that would be able to contain a judiciary which
>had
>become power mad.
>
>In the early years in this nation judges were impeached because of the
>nature of the decisions they made. Indeed, impeachment was understood to
>be
>a curb on people who abused their power. Our most famous impeachment case,
>that of President Andrew Johnson, was about the alleged abuse of power
>following the Civil War. The vote in the Senate fell one short of removing
>him from office. No one at that time accused Johnson of any crimes which
>would have otherwise been punishable under the criminal code. The issue
>was
>the use of federal power. Johnson wanted to remove a disloyal cabinet
>member from office without the concurrence of the Senate. It was the
>radical Republicans who dominated the Congress back then that brought the
>action against Johnson. Although they didn't succeed in removing the
>President from office, they certainly made their point.
>
>It is possible that DeLay would be able to muster a bare majority in the
>House of Representatives to pass the bill of impeachment against the
>federal judge in Texas or some other noteworthy candidates. It is a cinch
>that he would not be able to get them removed from office what with a two
>thirds vote of the Senate required to do so. At least half of the Senate
>will defend unbridled federal judicial power no matter what the abuses.
>
>But by merely taking this action, DeLay will have done more to curb the
>abuses of federal judicial power than anything else that now has a chance
>to succeed. If he can get just one bill of impeachment through the House,
>every judge who wants to make of himself a federal god will have second
>thoughts.
>
>As to fears by the left leaning American Bar Association that impeachment
>would have a chilling effect on the federal judiciary, that is precisely
>what the founding fathers wanted to happen. They wanted a political
>remedy
>for the abuse of political power.
>
>In announcing this, DeLay showed both initiative and courage. His move
>was
>not exactly greeted with cheers by some of his fellow Congressional
>leaders. Already the predictable forces are unleashing an attack on DeLay
>and this proposal.
>
>If DeLay will hold his ground, this will be a marvelous opportunity to
>educate the nation on the Constitution. It will truly begin to correct
>the
>gross distortions in the federal judiciary. It will put the proponents of
>Constitutional government on the offensive after more than sixty years of
>being on the defensive.
>
>History is on DeLay's side. His less-courageous colleagues want DeLay to
>back off and will bring enormous pressure against him. They just hate this
>sort of confrontation. But if there is one member of the Congressional
>leadership who has what it takes to see this issue through to a
>successful
>conclusion, it is DeLay. All of us need to walk with him down the
>difficult
>path he has chosen to follow.
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
<snip>
========================================================================
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