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