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)

> The Lincoln Heritage Institute is submitting this article on
>"Big-brotherism" and Constitutional Rights.  If more information is 
>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 
>shall not perish from the earth."  was stated by  President Lincoln at
>Gettysburg, but was really his dream.  The concerns for the protection of 
>individual against the abuses of an all powerful government, was the 
>of the first hand knowledge of our founders.  The outline of powers and
>structure of government written into the Constitution was not  an 
>and in a single sentence, Abraham Lincoln captured the meaning.
> Unfortunately, the methods used today by liberals and elitists to 
> more power in Washington is at times brilliant.  One of their most 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>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 
>ballots which decided an election.  Judge Russell Clark, in 1987 ruled 
>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 
>These are just a few examples.
>	 Our desire  for equality of opportunity for all of our citizens and for 
>protection of our other personal rights as we individually see it has
>absolutely nothing to do with the correctness or justifiability of this 
>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 
>	Johnson supports the massive undertaking of Congressman Henry Hyde, 
>of the House Judiciary Committee, to correct these Constitutional 
>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
>	Johnson ended by writing, "The American people are tired of non-elected
>judges trampling all over the Constitution.  The time has come for 
>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."	

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