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