How To Impeach A Supreme Court Justice

An earthquake achieves what the law promises but does not in practice maintain - the equality of all men. ~Ignazio Silone

The shock waves are still running around the internet with the latest supreme court ruling.  Some are claiming victory for free speech, but they are working for the almighty dollar and have betrayed the foundations of this country.  But what most don’t realize is that the supreme court never decided the question which had been placed before it.  Rather it took it upon itself to answer something entirely different.  Does this invalidate the ruling?  Possibly.

The question that was asked and that we all expected an answer to had to do with: Was an ad concerning Hillary Clinton, (during the presidential campaign), a corporate campaign ad or not? That was the question which was NEVER answered with this decision.  Instead, the Justices decided to go off on their own, something they are NOT supposed to do, (did corporations have the right to freedom of speech), and consider something completely different.    The whole thing was way off base and against all precedence.

A copy of the supreme court decision/documentation can be found HERE:

A great interview to watch to get some in-depth legal views/opinions and perspectives would be this PBS special done by Bill Moyer’s Journal, video link below:

This is an incredibly important video to watch to understand the consequences of this decision and what has been stolen from us. In effect, the supreme court ruled that money can say what it wishes. Think of the pressure this will put on any of those lawmakers, current or future, who want to work for us against the power those with billions to spend will be put under. Will they really want to go up against these Goliaths? Could you or I stand against Goldman Sacs, Pfizer, Bayer Corp. or Monsanto? Do you think you would have a prayer in hell of standing shoulder to shoulder with these corporate bullies and come out walking upright? Not a chance.

If you would prefer, you can gain a copy of the transcript here:

So, what can we do now that the supreme court, at least 5 of them, have betrayed us and the Constitution and Bill of Rights?  We can impeach them.  Here are the steps necessary:

Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office?

Yes!

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution.

Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may be prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it’s not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

The Impeachment Process

Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called “articles of impeachment”) are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is “impeached,” and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called “Managers,” act as the prosecutor, and an “Impeachment Trial Committee” of Senators act as the presiding judges. This procedure came into practice in the 1980s, with the passage of Senate Rule XII, and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter. At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office.

So what would be the articles of impeachment be for these justices?  How about betrayal of our Constitution?  What about graft and corruption?  The most important part of all this is to understand the difference between RIGHTS (see section 2) and PRIVILEGES!  Our rights was granted to us by our Creator.  A privilege is something that someone else, (person, congress, etc.),  gives us which can be withdrawn or taken back at any time.  The Declaration of Independence grants us nothing, it says that our Creator gave us unalienable rights.  The Constitution does Guarantee that those rights can never be taken away or infringed upon. Only evil men and women try to do that.  So long as we allow them to, or allow them to make noises like they can, they will continue to try.  And what does inalienable mean?

Main Entry: in·alien·able

Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

— in·alien·abil·i·ty \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun

— in·alien·ably \-ˈnāl-yə-nə-blē, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ adverb

As you can see it is impossible for us to surrender that which our Creator has endowed, (given), us. Nor can it be transfered to something which is NOT human, or not created by the Creator, God, Allah! The supreme court justices who say they can give the freedom of speech to a corporation are off their nut and need to be placed in a good home somewhere to be cared for and medicated against their delusions for the rest of their lives. It is obvious that they are incapable of making sound decisions.

Most Citizens today have forgotten what the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence means.  There is little wonder why when daily we are bombarded with news media, the acting POTUS, and Congress telling us we live in a democracy instead of the Republic that was established here.  Under a democracy those governing have much more power than those in a republic.

re⋅pub⋅lic

/rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Note the subtle differences. In a Republic, the governing is invested in each person. In a Democracy it is a majority rule. This is a critical difference to note.  By subtle rule changes and media bombardment and incorrect utterances, our government has sought to wrest the rights and power of each individual away and manipulate the masses to change our governments ability to make laws and consolidate power.  We must come back to our Republic foundations of governing.  Only then will We the People have a sure form of government.

And what does all this have to do with impeaching the supreme court justices who have betrayed us?  EVERYTHING!  If we allow ourselves to be manipulated by those with all the money we will destroy ourselves.  This is the goal of the New World Order.  Changing our Republic to a democracy is only one step.  Giving privileges to those companies who have no reason or right to have them is another.  These justices were bought off.  The four who stood against them and were out-voted knew this and have extreme reservations and fears.  These four we need to keep. It is imperative that we reserve the rights of Citizens FOR Citizens and not have corporation given the same power, with all their financial means, to compete with us.

Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 21, 2010

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.

A vindication of the First Amendment? NO, it was a betrayal of Citizens at the most fundamental levels of our foundations. A corporation is not alive, it is a thing, it is a business. It is OWNED, nor has it EVER had freedom!  Something that is OWNED doesn’t have any rights whatsoever!  A business is NOT a person and cannot have the right to Free Speech! Even the dumbest yahoo out there must know that. To think that this is a good decision, (not the question asked of the courts in the first place), is an affront to WE the PEOPLE! Citizens of this country should be up in arms and threatening to lynch these betrayers of all we have stood for in over two centuries.

Contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to IMPEACH these justices!

Advertisements

~ by justmytruth on February 4, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: