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