Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached

CNSNews.com ^ | 07/04/03 | Jeff Johnson.

[furnitureman]

Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached The nation's self-proclaimed third largest political party Thursday called for the impeachment of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn a Texas law banning homosexual sodomy. One legal expert responded that the prospect of impeaching justices for political decisions was settled nearly 200 years ago.

James Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee, called the court's decision "an affront to the very foundation" of the U.S. Constitution.

"It also shows blatant disregard for the people of various states and the laws their representatives have lawfully enacted," Clymer continued.

"Those members of the court who have so brazenly exercised illicit judicial authority should have to face the consequences of their actions which are violations of the Constitution, something they took an oath to uphold," he said.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens voted to strike down the Texas law and, Clymer said, should be removed from the court as a result.

The Constitution Party, which claims it is America's third largest political party in terms of actual voter registration, embraces the view that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights mean precisely what they say and that only their application, not meaning, should be subject to interpretation by the courts.

The group believes the decision is an unconstitutional encroachment upon powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States..."

"In other words," Clymer explained, "if a state is exercising a power reserved to it - like defining, establishing and applying its own laws pertaining to criminal justice - then the federal courts are supposed to maintain a hands-off attitude and uphold the state's right to do so."

He points to Article III Section 1 of the Constitution, which established the "supreme Court," as giving the grounds for impeachment.

"Contrary to popular belief, the justices of the Supreme Court do not have life tenure," Clymer argued. "Instead, the Constitution states that they are to serve 'during good behavior,' and this ruling is a prime example of what truly bad judicial behavior is."

He believes the intent of the "good behavior" clause was to ensure that judges would "maintain fidelity to the Constitution, the law and the highest of ethical standards during the conduct of their work.

"Their failure to do so is supposed to disqualify them from continued service on the bench, and Congress has the duty to see that this requirement is enforced, if those principles are seriously violated, through the mechanism of impeachment," Clymer concluded.

While Clymer's contentions may hold up in theory, Beau Baez, a professor of law with Concord School of Law in Los Angeles, told CNSNews.com that there is "practically zero chance" of a politically motivated impeachment succeeding.

"Thomas Jefferson tried it back in 1805 with another associate justice at the time - his name was Samuel Chase - primarily over a political squabble," Baez noted.

President George Washington appointed Chase, who was from Maryland, in 1796. At Jefferson's urging, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Chase, but the Senate refused to convict him.

"Ever since," Baez explained, "impeaching justices for unpopular opinions has pretty much been dead."

For a Supreme Court justice to actually face removal by the Senate, Baez added, would take much more than even a universally unpopular decision.

"It would probably take being convicted of a criminal act - like murder, fraud, theft - and then the justice refusing to resign," he said. "But I think if it's [an action] within their 'jurisdiction,' writing a legal opinion, expounding on the Constitution, it really becomes a political question."

At that point, Baez said, the political party in power would have to decide whether or not it wanted to risk retaliation from the current minority party in the future.

"One party may be in power today and may be able to boot a justice from the other party," he said. "But then, of course, four years or eight years later, it may be reversed.

"It's a dangerous game," Baez concluded, "because what goes around comes around."

[furnitureman]

Disabilities Act faces Supreme Court test
The decision on whether the law requires buildings to be handicap-accessible will affect Iowa's older buildings.
By LYNN OKAMOTO
Register Staff Writer
07/04/2003



Iowa courthouses, bus lines, parks and other government services all stand to be affected by an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether states can be sued for failing to make accommodations for people with disabilities.

"The implications of the case far exceed courtrooms," said Peter Blanck, director of the University of Iowa Law, Health Policy and Disability Center. "It goes to accessibility to many government services."

The Supreme Court agreed last month to hear Tennessee vs. Lane, a case that stemmed from a paraplegic man who crawled up two flights of steps to reach a hearing in a courthouse that lacked an elevator. A decision in the case will come next year.

Iowa, which has many century-old buildings, has had its own struggle with making public buildings accessible to the disabled as required by the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dan Hoffman, 57, of Fairfield remembers the embarrassment he felt in 1990 when he had to crawl up 23 steps of a county office building in Keosauqua to attend meetings of the Van Buren County supervisors. Hoffman has muscular dystrophy.

The county's adjacent 1840 courtroom, the oldest still being used in Iowa, is on the second floor and remains inaccessible.

"That particular building, with it being so old, it wasn't advisable to put an elevator in it," said Van Buren County Auditor Jon Finney. "It would destroy the interior or exterior in historical significance."

Finney said the county plans to make its court services accessible to people with disabilities this fall by renovating a ground-floor building addition into a courtroom.

But Hoffman said officials usually don't make changes unless someone forces the issue. He knows. His complaints over the years have led to ramps or elevators being installed at a county office building, a post office and a high school.

"I feel like I've done some good in some of these areas," he said. "We've still got a long ways to go."

Iowa advocates for the disabled are hailing the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Tennessee case as a major step that could have broad implications in Iowa.

"If we put some real teeth in the law and really enforce it, it will probably get better over time," Hoffman said.

Sylvia Piper, director of Iowa Protection and Advocacy, said the right to sue the state and collect damages is a matter of equity.

"Certainly, what is right for employers in the private sector should also apply to employers in the public sector," Piper said.

At issue is the scope of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, which celebrates the 13th anniversary of its signing July 26.

Until now, enforcement of the law has been based on complaints filed and the main enforcement agency has been the U.S. Department of Justice.

States have argued that lawsuits should not be filed against them because the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives them sovereign immunity, meaning no state can be sued in federal court without its consent.

In 2000, the Supreme Court sided with the state in Alabama vs. Garrett. It said Congress exceeded its authority with the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies to states, and violated the Constitution. The ruling had the effect of denying people with disabilities the right to sue state agencies and collect damages.

But Blanck said the case currently before the Supreme Court has a different hook because it's based on due process, not on equal protection rights, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

That brings new hope to people like U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who was the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Senator Harkin believes that we had an extensive record of discrimination against people with disabilities when we wrote the ADA," said Allison Dobson, a Harkin spokeswoman. "Senator Harkin believes the Garrett decision got it wrong and certainly hopes they can get it right this time around."

[Brian Allen]

<< ... the court's decision "an affront to the very foundation" of the U.S. Constitution.

"It also shows blatant disregard for the people of various states and the laws their representatives have lawfully enacted." ...

"Those members of the court who have so brazenly exercised illicit judicial authority should have to face the consequences of their actions which are violations of the Constitution, something they took an oath to uphold." ...

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens voted to strike down the Texas law and ... should be removed from the court as a result. >>

Absolutely!

[Orangedog]

Weap for the republic....it's not long for this world.

[c-b 1]

Weap for the republic....it's not long for this world.

Sadly I have to agree with you.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

...Clymer...

Heheheh...

[breakem]

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on. When and how did people get the idea that the constitution's purpose was to list all human rights. This type of think is dangerous and opens us up to the worst kind of totalitarianism. Let Freedom Ring!

[ImphClinton]

Impeachment is a political process not a legal process.

Just another thing that Clinton did in his attempt to destroy America.

Seems to me that a judgment totally contrary to the Constitution is grounds for impeachment. This judgement was not based on the constitution at all. Homosexuality was illegal in every state in America for over a hundread years. It is obvious constitutional to make it illegal. The signers were alive when these lawa exasted and none made any attempt to end them. Every society that has embrased homosexuality has never lasted move than another 60 years before serious decay most no longer existed after 60 years. The downfal fo the Roman empire started with making this legal. Besides the bioble teaches against it and we are a christian nation. So does nearly every other relegion.

They should be impeached as far as I am concerned as well.

I think I will change my registration just to make a point.

[furnitureman]

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[xrp]

Every society that has embrased homosexuality has never lasted move than another 60 years before serious decay most no longer existed after 60 years.

Interesting...what other societies?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Calling it a party is a bit ambitious, doncha think? Its not as if they need much more space than a side room at Denny's in order to have their convention.

[breakem]

The downfall of the Roman empire did not start with making homosexuality legal. You need to do some book learnin!

Your remembrences of the good days brings up visions of slavery, women without property rights and bunches of good stuff. Oh, how I miss them old days when things were perfect.

[breakem]

as a registered Libertarian off and on the last 10 years, I understand. We could meet in the other booth. LOL!

[oldvike]

Weap for the republic....it's not long for this world.

That's what's so sad. There's not many of us around who have the consience, or understanding, to weep. It's a lost cause, bud.

[breakem]

You have a very convoluted view of history, if you think this is a pattern. You have been asked specific questions by me and another poster to point out your misconceptions of history. Since you did not answer them, I will merely conclude you are truley ignorant on these issues and are just venting your anger at the rights of adults as stated by the court.

[breakem]

It's more than that, some of us are glad that the court has finally stood up for freedom from unconstitutional government intrusion into the private lives of other taxpayers. You can lement all you want, but there's freedom in the wind.

[furnitureman]

Judge Quits, Calls Judicial System Unjust

Wednesday June 25, 2003 12:59 AM


By LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is imprisoned.

``Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful,'' U.S. District Judge John S. Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The result, he said, is a slew of lengthy prison sentences for low-level drug dealers ``who society failed at every step.''

``Sentences should be just. We shouldn't be putting everybody in jail for the rest of their life,'' Martin said.

While many judges have criticized sentencing guidelines, it is unusual for a judge to publicly cite the frustrations of the job in stepping down.

Martin, 68, conceded he also wants to make more money after serving for 13 years in a judgeship that pays less than second-year associates make at many law firms. Federal judges earn $154,700 a year.

But he said the prime motivation came April 30, when President Bush signed a bill forcing federal judges to strictly follow sentencing guidelines.

Martin said he supports guidelines for the purpose of ensuring uniform sentencing nationwide, but added that Congress was going beyond that and forcing judges to impose harsh sentences on defendants who don't deserve them.

``While I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system,'' he wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday in The New York Times.

A one-time federal prosecutor, Martin said he plans to complete his caseload by summer's end and re-enter private practice. He said he is considering organizing former federal judges and top prosecutors to lobby Congress to make guidelines more sensible.

Martin has earned a reputation as a judge capable of stern sentences: In sentencing one violent gang member to life, Martin ordered the man held in solitary confinement and said he would have imposed death if he could.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

In case you never noticed, Rome was at its apex while it was deeply Pagan in belief. From the second decade of the 4th century until the eventual demise of Rome 150 years later, it was officially Christian, and the previous Pagan culture which fostered science, organization and law was officially oppressed. It took approximately 300 years for anything resembling some form of order to reassert itself in the West.

Christianity gains nothing by the misrepresentation of history.

[furnitureman]

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[Wolfie]

Telling that this is what gripes the Constitution Party. I didn't notice them getting hot and bothered when the SC stepped all over States' Rights to make their own marijuana laws. Libertarians in business suits, I guess.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

ALRIGHT! NOW TO GET THE CONSERVATIVE PARTIES (LIKE IN NY) AND ULTIMATELY THE GOP TO ADVANCE THIS -- this is a storm-wind blowing, and a breadth of fresh air. The White House had better get on board!

[breakem]

Try to focus. Here's a clue. you referred to Rome earlier and the fall of the republic. This had nothing to do with homosexuality unless you think Julius crossed the Rubican because he had a date with Pompey. Secondly, the empire survived another 400 years after that.

You can try to overload with information and articles I'm not yp for the game. In one example I have laid to rest one of your "sky is falling" references. I'll not lose any slepp because homosexuals can have sex with each other and you can't have them arrested.

Read my 8 and you will see that the real danger to our freedoms is the interpretation you take to the constitution and you subsequent surrendering to your state control over every aspect of your life. Thos of us who believe in liberty and the pursuit of happeness will not join your crusade.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

The conflict over Chase was CHILD's PLAY compared to the frontal assault of this Court on our basic right of self-governance and self-determination.

[breakem]

Wonder if peace and freedom party is finished with their name and would let half of it go. Conservatives for Freedom from governmental abuse of power.

[Kevin Curry]

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on.

Horse manure.

As a citizen you have the obligation to participate in goverment at the state level to create a local government that meets your expectations. If you desire a fully libertine state where men can marry their sheep and smoke dope at government expense, get busy and do the hard work of persuading your fellow citizens why this should be desirable and elect representaives who will design a state in this fashion.

Your problem is that you're you're bone-idle lazy and incompetent. It's easier to whine and ask nanny government in the from of SCOTUS to chew your food for you.

Citizens such as yourself are worse than worthless. You are a pus-filled boil on the posterior of the body politic.

"Waaaah! Waaaah! Please Missus Ruthie! Please Missus Sandy! The big bad government won't let me pork my boyfriend in the butt. Waaaah! Save Me! Waaaaaaaaah!"

[breakem]

bumping your 21

[CaptIsaacDavis]

True Republicans don't weeep -- they FIGHT!

[furnitureman]

COMMUNIST GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922684/posts

[breakem]

Now Kevin, I know the idea that some adults have sex in ways you don't like upsets you, but you see, they don't have to go to jail for it.

For four years you have misstated my position. I don't engage in homosexual sex, Kevin, in fact I don't much care for the thought of it, but I recognize the idea of freedom and that these people have the same right to do this as some heterosexual couples.

You can whine and ridicule that position all you want, but in the end, you either believe in freedom or you don't and it's clear that you don't.

[breakem]

Uh, no thanx. You keep posting additional info and not answering the challenges to your position. If you need some time to rethink, I can check back tomorrow.

[furnitureman]

Supreme Court justices are going by International globalization laws now

[breakem]

Uh, I addressed your point about Rome and so did another poster. Any reply? If you want to try the justices for being part of the one-world- group, communist conspiracy, gaystopo aganed, or traiters, go ahead and file a complaint with the department of justice.

[breakem]

PS: Kevin I can't be bone-idol lazy when I'm apparently chasing sheep, smoking dope, engaging in sodomy day and night. seems like a full agenda, if you know what I mean.

[TheAngryClam]

The third largest political party is the Green Party, sadly.

For a long time it was the Libertarians.

The Constitution Party is a distant fifth. However, their California affiliate, the American Independent Party, gets a huge number of people who think they're registering as an independent, so who really knows.

[TheAngryClam]

Heresy.

Then again, you'll never, ever win over one of the Christians who think that Christianity was responsible for every event.

Kind of like "well, the Russians invented it first, but then X stole it from us."

[El Gato]

According to this "party" and some freepers, the states have the right to tell us what to have for breaksaft, when to eat, when to go outside, what to name our kids, and on and on. When and how did people get the idea that the constitution's purpose was to list all human rights. This type of think is dangerous and opens us up to the worst kind of totalitarianism. Let Freedom Ring!

First of all, states have no rights, only powers. Secondly, the people of the state should look to their own courts and Constitutions to protect against such abuses by state legislatures and executives, although in this case those things were pre-existing rights or powers of the people, and their retention of them is protected by the 9th amendment. There is no right to commit homosexual acts explicitly protected, and to argue that there is a right which pre-existed the Constitution to do so which is "retained" by the people, is pretty silly, especially in light of the fact that such practices were illegal in all of the 13 original states at the time. It was not protected by any laws, state Constitutions, nor those of the colonies of England itself.

It's also pretty silly to argue that anything anyone wants to do is a "fundamental right" not subject to any regulation by the states.

[El Gato]

Your remembrences of the good days brings up visions of slavery, women without property rights and bunches of good stuff. Oh, how I miss them old days when things were perfect.

Irrelevant. Slavery was made illegal via a Constitutional ammendment. Womens property rights were brought to the current state by laws passed by the states, and in the case of Voting, by a constitutional amendment, the rest tended to flow from that, although much change also occurred before the amendment. Most of the laws and such were on matters, such as property rights, which are in the juridiction of the states, and that's were the changes were made, even absent a federal Equal Rights Amendment.

Where do some people get the idea that every social problem must be solved, or can be solved, at the federal level and that everything is the buisiness of the federal courts?

[DonQ]

So James Clymer has now decided that the Constitution Party is the official third party (even though its vote count puts it way way behind the Reform Party and Libertarian Party), and has decided to call himself "a legal expert". He is, in fact, a very ordinary lawyer in Lancaster, Penn., who has been rejected repeatedly by the voters, especially those who knew who he was.

As for impeaching the Justices because of their decision in a hotly debated case (where there were real legal experts lined up on both sides), this a definite departure from the American pattern of an independent judiciary.

Clymer still has a lot to learn about the American Constitution.

[Captain Shady]

I agree with the Constitution party on this.

[breakem]

the same place people get the idea that all human rights must be listed in the Constitution.

[breakem]

It's also pretty silly that you think the government in eaxh state has to power to restrict these personal freedoms. It was not silly however to say that historically there have been many laws which took away human rights or liberty. Silly that some people just don't believe that should continue. Damn silly!

[Cultural Jihad]

the same place people get the idea that all human rights must be listed in the Constitution.

Perzactly. We have the right to expect that all members of our society adhere to the kindness of religious morality, and we have the right to decide what kind of a society we are to live in, and our children and grandchildren have a right to their own innocence.

[GatekeeperBookman]

Mind-numbed robotic slaves of the government. They have been raised to serve the master-the government.

[Cultural Jihad]

LOL! Thanks for the tour of ideologue dementia!

[Duramaximus]

"Weap for the republic....it's not long for this world."

I agree... unfortunately, this is only the beginning. It is my opinion it will get worse.

[varon]

At that point, Baez said, the political party in power would have to decide whether or not it wanted to risk retaliation from the current minority party in the future.

"One party may be in power today and may be able to boot a justice from the other party," he said. "But then, of course, four years or eight years later, it may be reversed.

"It's a dangerous game," Baez concluded, "because what goes around comes around."

A good example of how the constitution is held hostage by the two party system!

[GatekeeperBookman]

El Gato asked, "Where do some people get the idea that every social problem must be solved, or can be solved, at the federal level and that everything is the buisiness of the federal courts?"


I answer-"Mind-numbed robotic slaves of the government. They have been raised to serve the master-the government."

You are amused & call me idiot. Hmmm. Your position seems clear & the limits of your abilities profound.