and the Nullification Party
an American Patriot
July 30, 2005
Posted on 08/03/2005 1:22:30 PM PDT by Mamie2010
On July 28, 2005 in "A "Treaty" by any other name is still a "TREATY," I questioned the constitutionality of the President entering an "agreement" without the 2/3rds vote of the Senate under Article II or the power of the President to introduce legislation to "regulate commerce" to Congress under Article I which vests that power to Congress.
I have since learned that CAFTA "legislation" was introduced under the Presidents "fast track authority." Since 1974, Presidents have used "fast-track authority" to negotiate foreign trade agreements. President Bill Clinton was granted "fast tract authority" by Congress to pass NAFTA and GATT. These international treaties requiring a 2/3 Senate approval were presented to both houses of Congress for a "simple majority" vote.
Under "fast-track authority" the President negotiates, signs and enters into "trade" agreements with foreign nations before Congress ever votes on them. "Fast track authority" is a violation of the separation of powers because the President has then become the legislator and the executioner of all foreign trade agreements without the 2/3rds vote of the Senate.
As a result of this violation of the "separation of powers," the President and Congress have entered agreements "binding on the states" through the Tokyo Round of the GATT in 1979, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement in 1985, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the NAFTA in 1993, and the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994 that replaced the GATT with the WTO.
The "fast track authority" of the President expired in 1994 and had not been renewed until The Trade Promotion Authority, legislation by Congress giving President Bush the "legislative authority" to negotiate trade agreements without congressional amendment. This legislation cleared the House of Representatives by three votes in 2002 and the Senate bill passed 66 for and 30 against. The Senate added the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) -- a multibillion dollar expansion of aid to workers who lose jobs as a result of a trade agreement and foreign competition. TAA also provided for a tax credit for 70% of the cost of health insurance purchased – this aid was probably because in the prior year U.S. workers lost 1.2 million manufacturing jobs. U.S. workers have lost jobs and wages in Mexico have fallen as a result of NAFTA in the past ten years, but nonetheless, Congress entered another agreement that would cause even more Americans to lose their jobs.
In 2003, US Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick lobbied the governors of the states for support for the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, only 22 governors pledged to agree to his negotiations for their state. The States Legislatures of 1/3 of those states have since withdrawn their support. CAFTA clearly did not have the support of the states as required for any foreign agreement or treaty.
Under CAFTA, the American people could lose the right to purchase vitamins and minerals over-the-counter and all sales would have to be in accordance with the "German Model" of health care, not the FDA. Do the American people really want to get a doctors prescription to purchase vitamins and supplements in accordance with the "German Model" of health care at prescription prices? Under CAFTA, will the international tribunal rule the FDA a violation of foreigners rights to export inferior goods?
On July 27, 2005, the House of Representatives, against the majority of the states and the will of the people, passed CAFTA by a "simple majority" vote of 217-215. CAFTA had already passed the Senate in June 2005 also by a "simple majority" vote of 54 to 45 vote. However, because the U.S. Constitution requires bills affecting government revenues – tariff taxes – to begin in the House of Representatives the Senate had to vote again, CAFTA passed the Senate a second time by the "simple majority" vote of 55 to 45 gaining the support of 1 Senator.
CAFTA removes tariffs and trade restrictions that protects American jobs and grants "protection" to corporations that operate outside of the United States by "exporting" manufacturing facilities and jobs to foreign nations. These corporations are then "free" of medicare and social security liability, "free" of taxes and "free" of employee benefit plans -- corporate America gets a "free ride" and then they "laundry" their goods and peddle their wares back to the good ‘ole United States through a ‘foreign nation' while giving the Citizens and the States get the "SHAFTA." This is not a "fair trade" because the citizens of the States trade a paycheck for an unemployment check, they lose insurance benefits, security and many lose their homes. The citizens are burdened with generating tax revenue for the government so it can then provide healthcare and other benefits to foreign nationals and ‘illegal aliens.'
On March 7, 2005, Business Week reported in "States' Rights vs. Free Trade" that a Utah law banning gambling in the state was struck down by the World Trade Organization. "in a case brought by the government of Antigua and Barbuda that gambling regulations in Utah and most other states conflict with America's obligation not to discriminate against foreigners providing "recreational services" and "Glamis Gold Ltd. is also suing for $50 million over California's attempt to protect Indian burial sites in the Imperial Valley from Glamis' open-pit mining practice." Business Week reported that the states have awakened from their slumber and are realizing "A growing number of international trade agreements are usurping state powers. Suddenly alarmed that Washington is bargaining away their authority over everything from regulating utilities to controlling land use, states are all but ready to join the chorus of anti-globalization critics." Well, all I can say is, it's about time and that ain't just whislin' Dixie!!!
The Constitution ratified by the States giving birth to a new nation and establishing the federal government guaranteed under Article I Section 1 that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives" – NOT the President. In Federalist No. 47 James Madison wrote that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny . . .The executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts . . . The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law."
The Constitution expressly guarantees that "the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- i.e, immigration laws, but the President cannot be legislator and executor. Vesting the President "fast-track authority" to negotiate foreign trade agreements and introduce legislation in Congress is a violation of the separation of powers and an unconstitutional transfer of power -- a power not granted to Congress under the Constitution. There's not a state in the union that would transfer title through a party that is not the "legal" title owner and likewise, "fast track authority" was not a power of Congress to give away.
The unconstitutional "transfer of power" by Congress constituted an amendment of the Constitutional powers delegated to Congress and the President without the Constitutional guarantee that amendments to the Constitution be ratified by "the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."
In his farewell address on September 17, 1796, President George Washington, an American Patriot, soldier and freedom fighter said
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government . . .One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown.. . . Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian . . .It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. . . .If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. . . .Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . .The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. . . .It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. . . . Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character."
Under CAFTA, and other "agreements" entered into under the authority of the "United States" against the will of the people and the states, the states "republican form of government" and the Constitutional protections guaranteed to the Citizens and States and many federal, state and local laws could be nullified or altered -- including laws on "illegal immigration." In other words, the Constitution FOR THE United States is not the "supreme law of the land" as guaranteed under the Constitution and CAFTA nullifies the Constitutional "guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." The UNITED NATIONS, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and any agreement AFTA, ARE TREATIES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS that violates the Constitution because they alter and transfer power over the states to a foreign entity. Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers, stated that "A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution..."
The Constitution grants neither Congress nor the President the power to "transfer power" over any state in the union to any foreign power -- whether it be by "agreement" or treaty – such legislation assumes authority over the States that was never delegated to under the Constitution.
On July 4, 1776, the British colonies unanimously adopted the "Declaration of Independence" declaring that
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. . .That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. . . He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers [refusing to impeach federal judges that violate the Constitution and obstruct justice] . . . .He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; [the Supreme Court, CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT] giving his Assent to their acts of pretended legislation [amnesty and benefits for aliens] . . .For protecting them [illegal aliens, terrorists], by a mock Trial [aliens and foreign nationals are not entitled to the rights of citizens or Article III courts], from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States . . . For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally, the Forms of our Governments [Supreme court striking down state laws as ‘unconstitutional' without constitutional authority]. . .He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us [refusal to secure the borders and encouraging mass immigration]. . .He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people [the backyard of the border states and "alien crossings"] . . .He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions [illegal aliens, militant "street gangs"] . . .In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. . . .We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been "deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them [Congress], as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. "
The "Declaration of Independence" is as relevant today as it was in 1776 and could easily be a dissent against Congress's failure to "repel invasions" and secure our borders as is its duty under the Constitution. But instead of Congress doing it's "duty" they " have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity" and actually encourages mass immigration threatening national security while citizens of this country are fighting the war on terror. Then to add insult to injury, Congress provides benefits and proposes legislation to grant amnesty to ‘foreign nationals' that have "actually invaded" the states in violation of the law of nations.
Congress, against the will of the people and the states approved NAFTA, GATT and CAFTA, – ‘free trade' agreements that caused injury to the citizens and the states. Congress has "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States" and it "has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws." As a result of these repeated injuries against the Citizens and the States, the time has come for the Citizens and the States to "provide new guards for their future security" because Congress is more interested in corporate America, special interest, foreign nationals and granting amnesty to illegal aliens than it is about securing our borders and the will of the people and the States.
CAFTA was entered into under the authority of the United States without the approval of any state -- "all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." The legal definition of the "United States" under Title 28, 3002 Sec 15 does not include the 50 states -- the "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. Perhaps that explains "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation."
Two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can adopt resolutions and petition Congress for a Constitutional convention to amend the Constitution – a request which Congress is required to honor. The legislatures of 32 states have already submitted petitions to Congress to call for a convention to vote on a federal balanced budget amendment – all that is needed are 2 more state petitions.
The "legislatures of three fourths of the several states" or by the "convention of three fourths thereof," the citizens in the 50 states in America can alter or abolish our form of government for "their Safety and Happiness" – the CEO's of the Fortune 500 companies, the democratic and republican parties, special interest and alien groups cannot. But Congress has more interest in political parties and the ‘special interests' of alien groups that have no right to petition our government for grievances than it does about the average citizen.
It isn't that corporate America doesn't have rights and interests, because they do, but their rights and interests should not be above the security and preservation of the states and the citizens. When corporate America outsources jobs to foreign nations at the expense of the American people, in my opinion they're no longer American, they're just corporations and are not entitled to petition Congress for ‘free trades.'
Through the resolutions of the legislatures or conventions of three fourths of the states, the Citizens and/or the States can render null and void any agreements or legislation made without the consent of the States which the Citizens and the States consider detrimental to their interests -- a Nullification Party. The citizens, by and through the legislatures of the states or conventions thereof, can repeal the 16th amendment whereby Congress can generate revenue for the federal government through import/export tariffs or flat excise taxes under its "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" -- not provide for the general welfare of "illegal aliens" and ‘foreign nationals.' Under a flat excise tax – the taxing of goods bought and sold – Congress can generate revenue from ALL people, not just citizens. A tax on imports/exports and goods bought and sold would terminate the federal government, by and through its collection agency the IRS, from seizing the private property of citizens through "bills of attainder" that are expressly prohibited under the Constitution.
In "Going Underground - Barron's The shadow economy is about to top $1 trillion -- at a great cost to Many," Jim McTague wrote "AMERICA HAS TWO ECONOMIES, and one is flourishing at the expense of the other. First, there's the legitimate economy, in which craftsmen are licensed and employers and employees pay taxes. Then there's the fast-growing underground economy, where millions of nannies, construction workers and others are paid off-the-books, their incomes largely untaxed. The best guess as to the size of the output of this shadow economy is about $970 billion, or nearly 9% that of the real economy. It should soon pass $1 trillion . . . In the process, the underground economy is undermining the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service, which is highly dependent on employees' withholding taxes. If the IRS could collect all the taxes it says that it is owed from the underground economy in a given year, then the current budget deficit would disappear overnight. And if the IRS could collect these taxes every year, then the nation would have surpluses as far as the eye can see." The United States' debt is owned by China and collecting taxes from "illegals" would balance the budget and give us a surplus??? What's wrong with this picture? I think the proposed federal balanced budget amendment is in order.
One million citizens with a dollar are worth more votes than one CEO with a million dollars but Congress is a respecter of persons and refuses to consider anything the average citizen has to say, I know I've tried, even though many of our ancestors died to give us the right to be heard. Freedom isn't free and the America Patriots didn't send the King of England a thank you note, one out of every four men died for the cause of independence. This nation was founded not by great fortunes and college degrees, but by the blood, sweat, tears and prayers of farmers and other average Americans that became great leaders and statesmen. Two of this country's greatest hero's of this time were Sgt. Alvin York and First Lieutenant Audie Murphy -- two country bumpkins. And our country has remained free because of the brave soldiers that have fought and gave their lives on foreign soil for the love of their country, their family and friends. How does our government thank them? They want to open the borders and roll out the red carpet and the treasury for all our enemies and until recently a one-time, tax-free $12,000 "death gratuity" was paid to the families – a gratuity is a ‘tip.' Many veterans and/or their families are homeless and hungry but our government freely gives ‘foreign nationals' and ‘illegal aliens' housing, healthcare, education, foodstamps, etc. For 12- 20 million ‘illegal aliens' in this country in violation of the law of nations, and laws of the states and the United States, the resources of the federal government and freedom is "free" at the expense of natural security and the Citizens and the States – privileges of citizenship that Congress has no right to give away.
On May 31, 1913, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was declared to have been "ratified" by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States even though the Constitution guarantees that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate" – that includes the 12 states that refused to ratify the 17th Amendment. "Equal Suffrage in the Senate" could not be deprived of any State by the 'majority' of the States -- only by consent of the State.
The 17th "unconstitutional Amendment" to the Constitution for the united States created a a 'stateless' democracy (communist ideology) and granted no representation to the States in the legislature as guaranteed under the Constitutional republic to regulate and limit the power of the federal government, thereby rendering the Senate for the united States null and void. James Madison explained the importance of the legislature being divided into two chambers in Federalist No. 10 stating "Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate."
In Federalist Papers No. 43, James Madison wrote "The prohibition against the adoption of any amendment whereby a state is deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent involves two things: first, that if the state chooses to consent, it may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; and, second, that it may not, by any amendment, be deprived of its power to give or refuse its consent." All legislation since 1913 has been in violation of the Constitution and in violation of the separation of powers because it has come from one consolidated source -- the people by their "elected" representatives in the House and their "elected" representatives in the Senate.
In a speech on the Senator floor on April 28, 2004 on repealing the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) said
"The U.S. Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an eighteen wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good. Andrew Young, one of America's most thoughtful men, recently took a long and serious look at a U.S. Senate race and after visiting Washington concluded that the Senate is composed of: ‘A bunch of pompous old (folks) listening to people read statements they didn't even write and probably don't believe.' . . .Most of the laws of our land - at least, the most important and lasting ones - are made not by elected representatives of the people, but by unelected, unaccountable ‘legislators' in black robes who churn out volumes of case law and who hold their jobs for life. A half-dozen dirty bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could bring this nation to its knees at any time. And yet we can't even build a fence along our border to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will cause erosion. This government is in one helluva mess, and frankly my dear, very few up here give a damn. It's not funny. It's sad. It's tragic and it can only get worse. Much worse. What this government needs is one of those extreme makeovers they have on television, and I'm not referring to some minor nose job or a little botox here and there . . .Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. That line on the monitor went flat sometime ago. You see, the reformers of the early 1900's killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators. Up until then, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, as Madison and Hamilton had so carefully crafted. Direct elections of senators, as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it's filling judicial vacancies or issuing regulations. The state governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with the popular fad of the time. . . .But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the states or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if U.S. senators were still chosen by and responsible to the state legislatures? Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect U.S. senators and then hold them in bondage forever. . . . The 17th Amendment was the death of the careful balance between state and federal governments. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected. Today, state governments have to stand in line. They are just another one of many, many special interests that try to get senators to listen to them. And they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC. The great historian, Edward Gibbons, said of the decline of the Roman Empire, "The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished." That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the state legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th Amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special interest tyranny and a blow to the power of state governments that would cripple them forever. And so, instead of senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate's greatest era of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, we now have many senators who are mere cat's paws for the special interests. It is the Senate's sorriest time in its long, checkered and once-glorious history. So, having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go ‘splat,' I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th Amendment. I use the word ‘would,' not ‘will,' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single co-sponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own."
President Abraham Lincoln and his "unconstitutional" Congress were the enemies of the Constitution and the States and we would all be wise to learn from the past and not repeat it. It's time to restore the Constitution and the United States Senate and give the States back the power to protect their citizens from an overzealous government in it's pursuit of globalization. "The United States Senate Restoration Act" -- An Act to restore a constitutional republic and Senate for the United States as provided for under Article I of the original Constitution for the United States. An act to restore and preserve state sovereignty and federalism – would do just that because "these United States are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." "The United States Senate Restoration Act" has been submitted to the legislatures of the majority of the states and the House Judiciary Committee and it guarantees to every state "equal suffrage" in the Senate and restores the power of the Senate to the States -- not political parties and special interest groups.
Congressional transfer of power through "fast track authority" was not the first time Congress took it upon themselves to overthrow the Constitution and the will of the people and the states. Over 50 years ago, Congress 're-wrote' the Constitution with an 'unlawful non-amendment' that altered or 'amended' the 'impeachment provisions' set out and 'guaranteed' in Article I Section 2 & Section 3, and Article III Section 2 -- this 'Act of Congress' was under color of United States Authority .
By the unanimous 'Act of Congress,' the USC Title 28 Sec. 372 "Retirement for disability; substitute judge on failure to retire; judicial discipline" was enacted – an unconstitutional transfer of power and an unconstitutional ‘Act of Congress' without the consent of ‘we the people' and the States of the union that provides for ‘judicial discipline' where the ‘judges of the circuit' – not the House of Representatives as guaranteed under the Constitution – determines whether or not a "a judge appointed to hold office during good behavior may have engaged in conduct - which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment under article II of the Constitution." The Constitution makes no provision for "judicial discipline," "appropriate corrective action" or self-regulation by the judiciary -- the only provision for judicial misconduct or "bad behavior" is impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate.
The "judges of the circuit" are given the opportunity to review the actions of the lower courts -- that's why you file an appeal. But rather than do their 'non-discretionary duty' to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, the 'judges of the circuit' affirm the 'unlawful' orders and judgements of the court with 'no opinions' and/or 'unpublished opinions' where they themselves become a party to all the unlawful acts. Article III judges have been given an 'absolute authority' that was not intended under the Constitution -- the judiciary is not held accountable to 'the people' for their actions and have been given the 'authority' to regulate themselves by an 'Act of Congress' that is strictly prohibited under the Constitution.
USC Title 28 Sec. 372 violates the 'separation of powers' by authorizing the 'judicial council' to certify ‘ its determination' to the "Judicial Conference of the United States" -- a body composed of 'senior federal judges of the districts and circuits that is headed by the Supreme Court Chief Justice William Renhquist.' Title 28 U.S.C. Section 331 that 'establishes' the 'Judicial Conference of the United States' specifically provides that the conference shall "exercise authority provided in USC 28 Sec 372(c) for the review of circuit council conduct . . under that section.' This is an authority not derived from and in violation of the Constitution -- a 'breach of contract' between 'the people' and States of the United States and the federal government.
Article I and Article III 'delegated' and 'restricted' to Congress the power to '. . .constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court' and such 'inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' However, Article I nor Article III of the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to transfer or vest the 'judicial branch' with the regulatory provisions of impeachment. The 'sole power of impeachment' -- including investigation of whether or not "a judge appointed to hold office during good behavior may have engaged in conduct - which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment under article II of the Constitution" was 'delegated' and 'restricted' to the House of Representatives -- the 'elect' of 'the people' -- not 'unelected' federal judges
Furthermore, the only power or authority that was 'delegated' to the 'judiciary' by the Constitution under Article III Section 2 was 'judicial power' -- no more, no less -- that "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and in Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States . . . to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; -- to controversies between two or more states; -- between a state and citizens of another state; -- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Article III Section 2 'restricts' the power of the judiciary to 'CASES' of original jurisdiction and prohibits judicial involvement in "cases of impeachment " -- the judiciary has the power to interpret the law in actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as "Cases or Controversies. Federal judges have the authority to judge based on law and 'fact' -- not to act. Impeachment requests or complaints of 'judicial misconduct' ARE NOT "Cases, in Law and in Equity arising under this Constitution" -- complaints of misconduct and requests for impeachment arise under Article I NOT Article III of the Constitution -- the 'judiciary' does not have 'any jurisdiction. Misconduct and impeachment determinations of all government officials -- including the President and the judiciary -- were 'restricted' to the 'elected' of 'the people'-- not 'unelected' judges. If the judiciary can't be trusted to uphold it's 'judicial oath' to fully and fairly apply the law in "Cases, in Law and in Equity arising under this Constitution" is it prudent to trust them with determining whether 'the people' were victims of judicial misconduct and breaking the "blue code" of their 'honored' profession? That's why they don't make inmates wardens.
Any judge who willfully commits legal error, abuses their authority, demonstrates a disregard for the Constitutional rights of 'the people' and due process of the law, fails to fully and faithfully operate 'within the rule of law' and procedure, exceeds their authority, disregards, omits or misrepresents the 'facts' or 'merits' of a case that resulted in an improper dismissal, demonstrates prejudice and/or bias and engages in a conspiracy to 'obstruct justice' -- 'as a matter of law' -- "have engaged in conduct - which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment under article II of the Constitution" and are subject to 'impeachment' hearings before the House of Representatives, not an 'investigation' by a "judicial council" for it's "determination" or "judicial discipline" -- it's 'unconstitutional.' The Constitution further guarantees -- not 'suggest' -- that they "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law" and "shall not 'enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."
But ‘bad behavior' and impeachable conduct by judges is treated with disdain because the judiciary is ‘independent.' I agree that the judiciary is ‘independent of the Constitution and independent of accountability.' The House of Representatives adopted seventeen articles of impeachment against Judge Alcee Hastings and he was impeached and convicted by the Senate on seven including: perjury, conspiracy to obtain a bribe and disclosing confidential information. In 1989 Judge Alcee Hastings was removed from office by the Senate under Article I Section 3 of the Constitution that expressly states "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, AND disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States" The Senate failed to do it's Constitutional duty when it failed to amend it's findings to include "disqualification" where impeached Judge Alcee Hastings could not "enjoy any office, trust or profit under the United States." In 1992, impeached Judge Alcee Hastings became a Florida Democrat in the House of Representatives serving as a member of the Committee on Rules and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – a direct violation of the Constitution. What does that say about Congressmen?
"The Judicial Reformation and Reorganization Act of 2005" – which may be cited as the "Judicial Act of 2005" – is "An Act to reform & reorganize the Judicial Courts of the United States as provided for under Article I and Article III of the Constitution of the United States. An act to limit and specialize the jurisdiction of the federal courts and promote federalism and state sovereignty." The "Judicial Act of 2005" vest Congress with the appointment of the judges of the inferior courts as delegated in the Constitution thus eliminating "political" appointments and establishes an Impeachment Committee [tribunal] to determine whether or not a "a judge appointed to hold office during good behavior may have engaged in conduct - which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment under article II of the Constitution" in pursuance of Article I of the Constitution.
The "Judicial Act of 2005" establishes Impeachment Sub-Committees appointed in the House of Representatives consisting of representatives from each state of the respective circuits. Each Impeachment Sub-Committee [tribunal] shall have the power of the grand jury and jurisdiction of impeachment requests outside of their individual circuit to impartially investigate and fully and fairly consider the facts of each request and initiate Articles of Impeachment and/or indictments. Any and all federal judges shall become 'criminally implicated' and a party to ‘criminal activity' as set out under federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, 3 and 4 by refusing to act according to the U.S. Constitution and their oath of office to report ‘criminal activity.'
The "Judicial Act of 2005," among other things, establishes courts of ‘special jurisdiction' under the authority of Article I of the Constitution in the district courts of each circuit to establish ‘uniformity of law' relating to specific issues -- environmental courts, discrimination & employment benefits court (Title VII, Title VIII, Title IX, COBRA, ERISA, Family Medical Leave Act, etc.), healthcare & patient's rights courts, etc., with direct appeals going to the ‘chief judge' of each district and provides for ‘special interim judges.' The "Act" establishes courts of ‘special jurisdiction' with exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of national security and offenses against the law of nations as defined by Congress, i.e., terrorism on land, air and sea and invasion of 'foreign nationals' because there is no Constitutional authority for federal judges to be involved in felonies against the law of nations or matters of national security.
The "Judicial Act of 2005" was submitted to the House Judiciary Committee and rejected under Marbury vs. Madison's separation of powers doctrine and its holding that "judicial officers" are appointed by the President under Article II of the Constitution because the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land." In Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). 5 US 137 (Cranch), Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court finding Madison's right
"originates in an act of congress [not the Constitution] passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law [not the Constitution] enacts, "that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace [not judges] as the president of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years, [not during good behavior] . . . . It appears, from the affidavits, [affidavits by James Marshall, brother of Chief Justice John Marshall] that in compliance with this law, [not the Constitution for the United States] a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace [not a "judgeship"] for the county of Washington [not the district], was signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; [by Chief Justice Marshall himself then serving as the Secretary of State] but the commission ["justice of the peace"] has never reached the person for whom it was made out . . . The time for deliberations has then passed. He has decided. His judgment, on the advice and consent of the senate concurring with his nomination, has been made, and the officer [not a "judge"] is appointed . . .Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, [the Chief Justice himself] was appointed; and as the law creating the office, [not the Constitution] gave the officer [not the judge] a right to hold for five years,[not during good behavior] independent of the executive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer [not judgeship] legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country. . . .the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, [not a "judge"] for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia [not a district court]"
Secretary of State, John Marshall, along with President John Adams signed the commission for William Marbury as "justice of the peace." Notice how Chief Justice John Marshall refers to the "secretary of state" and affixing the seal of the United States without naming himself as Secretary of State? Later, John Marshall, then Chief Justice over the Supreme Court, presided over a case in which his acts as Secretary of State were reviewed and in addition, affidavits were submitted to the court by Chief Justice John Marshall's brother, James Marshall. John Marshall was executor and judge of a commission for ‘justice of the peace' – a judicial officer – he signed -- a violation of the "separation of powers" that should render Marbury vs. Madison 'unconstitutional.' But Marbury vs Madison is controlling authority for judicial review. Citing Marbury vs. Madison as authority to reject the "Judicial Act of 2005" as a violation of the separation of powers and precedent for the appointment of "judicial officers" by the President is almost laughable.
The "Judicial Act of 2005," unlike Marbury, is not a violation of the "separation of powers" because it does not vest Congress with ‘judicial power' – only the power of judicial appointment. The President of the United States, whose jurisdiction is in the "united" states and whose job it is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" was vested with the power of judicial appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court – judges whose jurisdiction was in the "united" states, but the President assumes the appointment of the judges of the inferior court under the executive branch but no one thinks that's a violation of the "separation of power."
The power to make law, establish and ordain the courts inferior to the Supreme Court and restrict court jurisdiction, is "vested in a Congress of the United States" consisting of two houses -- the "house" of "the people" and the "house" of "the states" – NOT the President. The Constitution guarantees the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment" but the Judiciary Committee considers impeachment requests to Congress a violation of the "separation of powers" and passes off judicial impeachment requests to the "judicial council" established by Congress where the judges of the circuit judge the judges of the circuit – a direct violation of the ‘separation of powers.' The Constitution did not establish the "judicial council" and impeachment requests to the House Judiciary Committee is not a violation of the ‘separation of powers' and until members of Congress grasp this, we the people don't have a defense against the judiciary.
As Constitutional authority to reject the "Judicial Act of 2005," it was explained to me that "judicial appointments" are restricted under Article II's power that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, . . The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session . . . . .The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment."
Article I established Congressmen, Article II established "civil officers" and Article III established "judges." Article II, established executive power and with the exception of the Judges of the Supreme Court, delegates "administrative power" -- Article II does not grant "judicial power." The power to grant judicial power was delegated under Article III to Congress -- you "ordain" ministers and likewise you "ordain" judges -- the life and death of the inferior courts is vested in Congress not the President.
When people talk about the appointment of federal judges, they always say the Constitution gave the President the power to appoint ALL judges of the court with the advice and consent of the Senate, when in fact, the Constitution only gave the President the power to appoint the "judges of the Supreme Court" and nowhere are the judges of the ‘inferior court' restricted to Presidential appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. But according to the House Judiciary Committee, the "judicial officers" of the inferior courts are "other officers" under Article II and just to be sure and evidence that "fact" please refer back to the Supreme Court's holding in Marbury vs. Madison -- the "supreme law of the land." Stupid me, I thought the Constitution was the ‘supreme law of the land' and I thought a "judge" was a "judge."
But let us consider whether it is constitutional for the President to appoint "judicial officers" as "other officers" to an Article III court under Article II's power of a recess appointment. Funny thing is, there's been a lot of cases filed and a lot of debate over the constitutionality of "judicial recess appointments" because "judges" aren't considered by many to be "other officers" under the recess appointment clause because their commission "shall expire at the End of their next Session" and not restricted to "good behavior" – judges are just "other officers" for the power of judicial appointment.
Article III guarantees that the "judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Confucius said "Rectify the names ... If the names are not correct, language is without an object" – Congress needs to determine what "is is" – is a "judge" a "judge" entitled to "independence" under Article III or is a "judge" an "other officer" under Article II subject to a commission that expires? A commission as a "justice of the peace" as in Marbury vs. Madison would be an "other officer" by an ‘Act of Congress' but a "judge" is a "judge" or not.
In United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955) the Supreme Court held that "to discourage recess appointments, Congress enacted 5 U.S.C. § 5503, which prohibits (with certain, limited exceptions) recess appointees from receiving any compensation from the federal government for their services. Judge Gregory does not appear to qualify for any of the statutory exceptions, and thus he most likely is not being paid anything for his service as a Fourth Circuit judge. By contrast, judges authorized to exercise the judicial power of the United States under Article III of the Constitution have life tenure and are paid compensation that is not subject to being reduced during their time in office."
Notwithstanding the fact "judges" are "judges" and not "other officers," the judicial appointments in "The Judicial Act of 2005" to the courts of ‘special jurisdiction' are appointed under Article I and not Article III. In Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), the court stated "it is clear that when Congress creates a substantive federal right, it possesses substantial discretion to prescribe the manner in which that right may be adjudicated - including the assignment to an adjunct of some functions historically performed by judges . . . . with respect to congressionally created rights, some factual determinations may be made by a specialized factfinding tribunal designed by Congress, without constitutional bar, id., at 54. Second, the functions of the adjunct must be limited in such a way that "the essential attributes" of judicial power are retained in the Art. III court. Thus in upholding the adjunct scheme challenged in Crowell, the Court emphasized that "the reservation of full authority to the court to deal with matters of law provides for the appropriate exercise of the judicial function in this class of cases. . . .when Congress creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right." .
Clearly, the courts of ‘special jurisdiction' established under "The Judicial Act of 2005" are "adjunct' courts attached to federal district courts under the authority of Article I of the Constitution in each circuit to establish ‘uniformity of law' relating to specific issues and statutory rights created by Congress -- environmental courts, discrimination & employment benefits court (Title VII, Title VIII, Title IX, COBRA, ERISA, Family Medical Leave Act, etc.), healthcare & patient's rights courts, etc., with direct appeals going to the ‘chief judge' of each district. Bankruptcy Courts are Article I adjunct courts under the jurisdiction of the district court and bankruptcy "judges" are appointment with term limits. Judges of "adjunct courts" are not judges under Article III, and like Magistrate Judges, are subject to term limits.
Congress has no problem transferring power to the executive and judicial branches that were expressly delegated to Congress under the Constitution without an amendment by Conventions or by the Legislatures of the States. Congress has no problem granting benefits and the privileges of citizenship to "illegal aliens" in violation of the Constitutional duty to "repel invasions" and its "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Congress has no problem granting amnesty to over 12 million "illegal aliens" that are in violation of the "law of nations" when neither Congress nor the President has the power to grant amnesty to citizens under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Congress has no problem entering foreign agreements making the citizens and the states subject to laws foreign to our own that nullify our rights under OUR Constitution. Congress has no problem making agreements and laws binding on the states even though the State has no representation in Congress. The House Judiciary Committee and Congress contends "other officers" under Article II are entitled to the guarantees of the "judges" of the court" under Article III. Congress contends the Supreme Court is the "supreme law of the land" and Marbury vs. Madison is controlling precedent for Presidential appointment of judges as "judicial officers" even though Marbury was commissioned a "justice of the peace." But the House Judiciary Committee considers "The Judicial Act of 2005" a violation of separation of powers even though the "Act" does not grant Congress "judicial power."
A revolution is a transfer of power and the Constitution FOR THE United States belongs to "we the people" and the States -- NOT Congress, NOT the President, NOT federal judges and NOT a foreign power. Be it resolved that: "We the people" and the States did not vest Congress with the authority to grant "fast track authority" to any President. "We the people" and the States did not vest Congress or the President with the power to enter agreements that effects the livelihood of the citizens of the States without their consent. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress with the power to transfer the powers of impeachment and determination of ‘bad bahavior' to the judicial council. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress nor the President with the power to subject us to a jurisdiction and laws foreign to our own. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress with the power to "lay taxes" for the benefit of foreign nationals. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress nor the President with the power to grant amnesty to citizens of foreign powers who have "actually invaded" our states in violation of the law of nations. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress with the power to "catch and release" foreign nationals that have "actually invaded" our states in violation of the law of nations and the laws of the United States. "We the people" and the states did not vest Congress with the power to grant immunity to foreign nationals that have "actually invaded" our states in violation of the law of nations and in violation of the laws of the States and the laws of the United States. And be it resolved that: Until such time "we the people" and the states give Congress the aforementioned authority, we are a republic of representative government and not a democracy governed by an "elected" that overrule and ignore the will of the people and the states.
Peter Muhlenberg, a minister and Patriot, said "There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come." If you want to restore the Senate from the Senate for Mexico to the Senate FOR THE United States, and nullify ‘unconstitutional' transfers of power by Congress, contact your State Representative and ask that they petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention and support Amendment XXVIII "The United States Senate Restoration Act" If you want to restore the Constitution for ‘we the people' of the United States and hold federal judges accountable to ‘we the people' as guaranteed under the Constitution, please contact the House Judiciary Committee at 202 226 7680 and your Representatives in Congress and ask that they co-sponsor and support "The Judicial Reformation and Reorganization Act of 2005" because "these United States are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES"
a seventh generation American Patriot
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
UN trying to overturn "Second Amendment"
Pro-gun Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is getting ready to introduce a bill that would block the United Nations from implementing gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens
CAFTA is not a treaty, even if you ignore the fact that the senate did not ratify it. It looks, acts, and most definitely is simple legislation.
Too much crap in one article to even bother with. Maybe that is why there are no comments.
If that is true, what was that vote in Congress all about?
You took the words right off my keyboard.
Constitutional Convention- bad, very bad and I would fight it to the max. In it you could ditch all our rights and impose all sorts of bad things. I like our current one and do not like what a bunch of PC/right/left crazies might impose on us. Let us fight to make those in power obey the current one. If you get a new one, who says anyone will follow it?
A new Constitutional Convention would lead to a revolution and who knows what else. Use your vote or run for office.
Man, where is the tinfoil?
You are exactly right.
Before the Senators were elected by popular vote, their chamber was selected by the legislature of their respective statehouse. If they PO'd enough of their home state good ol' boys, they could be cashiered. And if the electorate became disenchanted with the sad state of their Senator, the voters had an opportunity to replace the offending legislators with ones who would vote to fire a Kennedy. Sadly today, the popular vote shields the Senators from voter wrath and from accountability to their state.
An unconstitutional delegation of authority.
Some people just don't understand the document.
Now, LEGALLY, the sovereignty of the people lapsed in the bankruptcy of 1933, for the paltry sum of, IIRC, a hundred billion in gold. We have been under Admiralty Law since then with the executor of that bankruptcy being the President. It's your typical lawyer driven sham.
In the same sense that Budgets do not begin in Congress. The President submits what he thinks he needs, and Congressmen take it and submit it as a bill...but if no Congressman is willing to submit it, it just sits there as a proposal.
CAFTA is not a treaty, but a law...thus it can be repealed as a law if the Congress so decides, and the President does not veto...or Congress can over-ride the veto - and unlike with a treaty, the President can't just blow them off.
I'm authoring an article on the 14th Amendment that you will find illuminating. I'll let you know when it's posted.
You and the article are absolutely correct...But what does a Constitution mean to a few Free Traitors...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.