Thursday, May 08, 2008

Federal Judicial History | Impeachments of Federal Judges

Impeachments of Federal Judges

John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, U.S. Commerce Court.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; resigned office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.

Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.

Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.

Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Impeach A Judge: Do-It-Yourself

This received from an impeachment group is one of the problems of IMPEACHMENT, everyone today wants to Impeach the Chief Justice, or the President, they gun for the top dog, not the "pitiful puppy" at the bottom of the federal food chain, the local judge, federal or state.  Yet the "puppy", the local judge, is the one misbehaving, tearing up the household along with its furniture and "" on Citizen Rights.

However, they do a useful service in having used their paws to dig out this bit of history of impeachment of a local federal judge.  Please read on, THAT lesson can be applied today.

Impeach Bush peach

Action Alerts:events/protests.
" onclick="checkform();">






Do-It-Yourself Impeachment...

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and
Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Download, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in a letter today. We're sending this wave in to House Rep. Dennis Kucinich who has recently spoken in favor of impeachment. There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative as well as representatives reccommended by Keith Ellison of the House Judiciary.

One of the copies will come to Impeach for Peace's home office and we'll hand deliver them to a House Rep. with cameras rolling.

That's right — to make a big impact, when we get enough, we'll deliver them all on the same date (In previous waves, we've had over 500,000 download of the document representing over 1.7 million mailings). We hope to flood the congress with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure them to act on the memorials. Although, it's important to keep in mind that in the 1830 precedent, impeachment resulted as a result of a single memorial. Yours might be the one.

Frequently asked Questions and Answers

Concerns over the strategy of pushing for impeachment in this way?
See the 'Arguments Against Impeachment' at the bottom of the main page.

In the News: KFAI radio interview, "Mike Malloy Show," and Peter Werbe audio.


Also, if you're interested:

Information regarding Impeachment procedure

Precedent: Judge Peck's Impeachment
supplied by the U.S. House of Representatives and

House rules that allow for the submission of the memorial

Jefferson's Manual

Jefferson's Manual is a sort of interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy.

Within the Manual itself, the section covering impeachment is designated Section LIII. Section 603 refers to the section of the entire volume (including the Constitution and Rules) in which you'll find the listing of acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor. The second vehicle being of most interest to our method. It reads:

"In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 552); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (April 15, 1970, p. 11941-2); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444)."
While some of these words are no longer used in our everyday speech, here are the important bolded words above to understand:

Memorial: "a written statement of facts accompanying a petition presented to somebody in authority"

Preferred: "to make a charge against somebody by submitting details of the alleged offense to a court, magistrate, or judge for examination, or prosecute such a charge"
from the Encarta® World English Dictionary

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office

Hinds - III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515

Cannon's - VI, 552

Peck and contempt (care of

There is the case of Judge James H. Peck, an 1830-31 impeachment and acquittal. President Monroe had appointed Peck to the bench in 1822. In 1828, the Democrats swept to power. That met the condition for partisan conflict.

Peck was judge in Missouri in a series of land claim cases in the territory of the Louisiana purchase. The law was complicated, the interests involved huge. In the first such case, in 1825 (the account here draws mainly on Bushnell's in Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes), Peck ruled against the client of a lawyer named Luke Edward Lawless. Because of the high degree of interest in the case, Peck published his ruling in a St. Louis newspaper in 1826. Shortly thereafter, a detailed rebuttal of Peck's ruling appeared in another newspaper under the byline, "A Citizen." Peck was furious at the attack. He believed the "Citizen" rebuttal, in addition to its flawed legal reasoning, was replete with errors and misrepresentations of his ruling. Lawless's authorship soon became known.

Bushnell writes:
Peck held the letter to be a contempt of court, sentenced Lawless to twenty-four hours in jail, and suspended him from practicing in federal court for eighteen months [a serious blow to Lawless's livelihood as a lawyer specializing in land claims before the federal courts]. As the basis of the contempt ruling, Peck found that Lawless acted "with intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of said court, and to bring odium upon the court, and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the cases now pending therein."

Lawless felt he was entirely within his rights to criticize a published decision and saw the contempt ruling as a tyrannical affront to the Constitution. He began a long crusade against Peck that ultimately led to impeachment nearly five years later on one article dealing solely with the judge's treatment of Lawless. The article accused Peck of acting "to the great disparagement of public justice, the abuse of judicial authority, and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the United States." James Buchanan, who went on to be elected president in 1856, was chairman of the House managers.

Peck maintained that his contempt ruling was within his powers as a judge, and his defenders argued that even if it went too far, Peck did not, as the article alleged, act with bad intent, believing that he possessed sufficient authority for his actions. At a minimum, however, it seems fair to say that Peck's actions from the bench were harsh enough to meet the test of genuinely dubious conduct.

Peck was acquitted with 21 votes in favor of removal and 22 against. Where was the abuse of the separation of powers here? In this case, not in the statute books but in the common law — the precedents Peck relied on to hold Lawless in contempt and to sentence him harshly. As Bushnell observes, Peck's defenders "sought to refute the charge of abuse of the contempt power by citing English and American precedents supporting the authority of courts to punish for contempts like Lawless's." The House tried to hold his conduct to the standard of its more circumscribed view of judicial contempt powers. The Senate was not willing to rely on the House's assertions to the extent necessary to remove Peck.

But the Senate, like the House, can hardly be said to have found Peck's conduct salutary. Both chambers amply demonstrated this by approving, within a month of Peck's acquittal, legislation introduced by Buchanan restricting contempt findings in federal courts roughly along the lines of the terms the House managers had unsuccessfully tried to apply in Peck's impeachment. Contempt could be found in misbehavior in a courtroom or close enough to it to disturb its proceedings; or in misbehavior in such business of the courts' as filing motions and briefs; or in the failure to obey a lawful court order. It could not be found in a newspaper rebuttal to a court's decision. Buchanan's legislation governs contempts in federal courts to this day.

Lawless' actual memorial: Source-U.S. House Precendents: Hinds III, 2496-2499

More information on Peck's impeachment; Carnegie Mellon University Universal Library

Petitions, memorials, and private bills

[110th Congress House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 108-241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database]
Petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to the House may be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may present a petition from the people of a State other than his own (IV, 3315, 3316). The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one committee and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV, 4557).

Source: U.S. Government Printing Office

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984
Impeach for Peace icon


Contact Us! © 2006

Monday, September 17, 2007

IMPEACH or IMPLODE ?, that is the question...

IMPEACH, or IMPLODE? that is the question. Whether 'tis better to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or ... take action, that too is a question worthy of time in thought.

Though taught as true in government schools and parroted in the mainstream media, NOT anywhere in the Constitution does it provide for federal judges to be "appointed for life"!

This is a book-to-be again (was near complete in a.d. 2003 when my three computers with six near complete books were stolen, but the "authorities" never bothered to try to find the stolen goods...) telling the history of Judicial impeachments in America. Jefferson after losing to Marshall in an early "supreme Court" justice impeachment waxed fatalistic when he wrote, "Impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow."

At age 22, Theodore Roosevelt cut his teeth in politics by leading the charge to successfully impeach and remove the Chief Justice of New York. Both great men along with the greatest President, George Washington, are sculpted into Mount Rushmore, across the gap is Lincoln.

This book will remind us all of the DUTY in the Constitution of legislators on both the state and federal levels to impeach judges whose "bad behavior" is leading us to dissolution as a Republic, a nation of laws for the people, not laws ignored or "legislated from the bench" by judges "behaving badly".

This seeks to provide a "How To" book for us, for the U.S., for "We, the People" to begin the essential task to demand our elected servants in the legislature to follow the lead of George Washington who said "do my Duty to God and my Country" by initiating far more Bills of Impeachment against jaundiced judges so to rein in or remove "bad behavior" and restore our Republic. ***GW***

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Landmark case by US supreme Court on Exposing Judges Bad Behavior

Since this Letter to the Editor was written in March a.d. 2005, two supreme Court justices mentioned have left the court, one Sandra Day O'Connor retired, and William Rehnquist, passed away.

Then Delegate Bob McDonnell is now Virginia's Attorney General.
Update: November a.d 2009, Bob McDonnell is now Virginia's Governor Elect.


From: James Renwick Manship
Date: March 12, 2005 3:55:43 PM EST
To: 2 individuals
Cc: 27 others, including some groups

Subject: God Bless The Virginia-Pilot / Reporting on Judges

Dear Editors and Staff of The Virginian-Pilot:

God bless The Virginian-Pilot! On the masthead include the words of the publisher Frank Batten: "Our duty is clear… to exercise First Amendment freedoms…", much along the lines of the words of George Washington, and the Boy Scouts, "do my Duty to God and my Country…"

From editor Mark Davis who in 1996 wrote an article that mentioned the landmark United States supreme Court case in 1978, this week I learned the case name: Landmark Communications v. Virginia. Then reading that Supreme Court Opinion I see The Virginia-Pilot beat back the attempt of the Virginia judiciary to censor, or violate the freedom of the press. Again God bless y'all. (For full disclosure, I wrote an article on the JIRC – Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission last year in a small local newspaper...)

Two key quotes from the Landmark case are as the famous Justice Black observed in Bridges v. California, 314 U.S., at 270-271:
'The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges
from published criticism wrongly appraises the character
of American public opinion. . . .

[A]n enforced silence, however limited,
solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench,

would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt
much more than it would enhance respect."

Justice Frankfurter agreed that speech cannot be punished simply
"to protect the court as a mystical entity
or the judges as individuals or as anointed priests
set apart from the community and spared the criticism
to which in a democracy other public servants are exposed."

Recently, the bill first introduced in 1999 as HJR212 by Delegate McDonnell for Judicial Performance Evaluations of Virginia district court judges was finally funded this year, six long years later. Sadly, the circuit court judges remain unaccountable, and the common citizen is not included in the process except for juror evaluations of judges.

In our neighbor to the north, the District of Columbia, there is a Center for Court Excellence with its Court Community Observers Project report that on the cover page quotes the current Chief Justice Rehnquist:
"Justice is too important a matter to be left to the judges,
or even the lawyers,

the American people must discuss, think about,
and contribute to
future planning of their courts."

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society
but the people themselves;
and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control...,
the remedy is not to take it from them
but to inform their discretion by education.
This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Jefferson also wrote:
'The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…"

Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schafly, Judge Bork, Fox commentator Judge Napolitano, Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin all have recent books on the subject of judicial abuse of the Constitution similar to the abuse in Landmark v. Virginia in 1978.

And while this week The Virginian Pilot has reported on two assaults on judges in Illinois and Georgia, in the same way the media and citizens were not silent about the terrorists who attacked the Twin Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia, the press and the people must not allow these physical attacks on judges to suppress proper evaluation and criticism of judges who subvert the Constitution.

I suggest that you post a link to the excellent Landmark decision on your Pilot Online daily as a way to educate the public about their role, and their rights in regard to their judiciary. Retired veterans and teachers and preachers all need to go and evaluate judges so to maintain justice and order in the courts -- and to preserve our blessed Constitution.

For America's Future,

James Renwick Manship, Sr.

(540-322-1767 per May a.d. 2009) local contact phone.
(540-343-6717 per August a.d. 2006) local contact phone.

P.S. I know this is longer than the normal letter to the editor, so editors, please feel free to edit it to the space alloted or available, and thank you again for your defending our God-given Constitution, the 'Miracle in Philadelphia", a document that I often teach in the schools, and even in your Chesapeake Clipper a few years ago was mentioned doing at Stone Bridge School.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Steeplechase, Horsemanship, and Horsey Judges...

[Click on the page images to enlarge,
Click again to magnify to ease reading.]

Thomas Jefferson once said that George Washington was the finest horseman of his day (or age). One would presume that one of the fine horsemanship skills that Washington possessed was the ability to take his horse over jumps, over obstacles, over bars.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1972 edition, volume 25, page 608, says “Steeplechasing” is “Racing by a number of horsemen over a course obstructed by such obstacles as are met with in cross-country riding – hedges, walls, ditches, fences, steep banks, and the like. Considerable danger is involved. The idea originated from the cross-country contests between hunters who made a distant church steeple or some such landmark their goal.”

Very few riders are likely to mount a horse a first time, ride it, and clear every obstacle in a steeplechase course, even with a thoroughbred horse; one or more obstacles will be hit. Only by much practice, by repeatedly going over the course, will all the steeplechase obstacles be successfully hurdled.

Ironically, this concept of riding a thoroughbred over a steeplechase obstacle course relates to a major crisis in the Constitutional system of American government.

How so? The judicial branch, the ‘supreme’ Court and the lower courts, has set about as a goal landmark lawsuit decisions chasing church with its steeples and its peoples from any central role in our government. The obstacles and bars are legal, more so than physical. And in Landmark v. Virginia, the extra-Constitutional JIRC agency designed to discipline judges tried to discipline the Press when it wrote words about their work.

Where racial segregation was banished from our society since the 1960’s with its discriminatory “Poll Taxes” and “back of the bus” treatment, anti-Christian segregation has been enthroned as an aspect of our legal system due to ‘supreme’ Court and lower court rulings during the same time frame of America’s “forty years in the wilderness”.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary, if given too much power might ruin our Republic, and destroy our rights. That fear is tragically becoming true in America. The First Amendment Right of “free exercise” of religion in the public square is being denied.

In 1820, Jefferson wrote, “The Judiciary of the United States is a subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.”

In 1821, Jefferson also wrote, “…the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief…”

“We, the People” must follow the “Yellow Brick Road” of our God-given Constitution and make the “scarcely a scarecrow” Impeachment action Jefferson lamented into a being a tool that “scares straight” judges. How? By adding a brain, by adding to our brain knowledge of our Constitution and its provisions on the proper use of the power of Impeachment. And adding a heart, a heart for Equal Justice for all, including judges.

“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

In America today, we have a Judicial Tyranny, the judiciary is now “a despotic branch”.

Jefferson gave wise advice in yesteryear, that Americans must begin to implement today:
“…judges should be withdrawn from the bench
whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.
It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune,
but it saves the Republic…”

To “save the Republic”, Americans must begin to act to have biased judges “withdrawn from the bench”, that is to say “We, the People” must IMPEACH, judges.

In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution’s stipulates an Oath or Affirmation for the Executive, and similar Oaths are required for elected members of Congress and for selected judges and justices as that stipulated for the President that reads:
-- “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution for the United States.”

The Constitution Oath does NOT say, “presume, project, and extend” the Constitution as the whim of the judge wishes as too many out of control judges have done for far too long.

Our Constitution in Article III, Section 1 reads,
“The Judges, both of the supreme and the inferior Courts,
shall hold their offices during good behavior…”

What can be worse behavior in our Republic than a judge undermining the Rights of the Citizens?

Article III pertains to the Judiciary. Article III, Section 2 reads,
“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; …”
Impeachment by the House of Representatives is not limited to only the President like Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, both Impeached by the House, though neither were convicted in the Senate.

Impeachment is only half of the process, Conviction in a trial by the Senate is the other essential half. To the Senate is reserved the power to try and convict an errant judge or government appointee; because Impeachment is for any officer of the government, including judicial officers, that is to say, judges and justices whose conduct is not “good behavior”. In essence, the House of Representatives is the Grand Jury that votes to Impeach, equivalent to an Indictment of a citizen. The Senate is the Trial Jury.
Article I, Section 2 reads,
“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Article I, Section 3 reads, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”

Article I, Section 5 imposes a similar two-thirds requirement to expel, or remove, a disorderly member of the Legislative branch of the government as for the executive branch, both who are servants of the people, where it reads:
“Each house may…, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and,
with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”

Logically, therefore, the Judicial branch deviant judge would be Convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate on an Impeachment Charge of “other than ‘good behavior’” passed by the House, in the same way the Constitution establishes a two-thirds vote for both the Legislative and Executive..

By our Bill of Rights, is the First Amendment Right of “right of the people”… “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” “We, the People” have the right, yes even the duty for our children and our children’s children’s children, to “posterity”, to Petition the Congress to initiate a Bill of Impeachment against an errant federal judge.

Impeachment is the “thoroughbred” provided by the Constitution to jump the obstacles to our Liberty erected by our federal judiciary.

Conviction in the Senate is the Steeplechase course of obstacles necessary to remove an errant judge, or other government servant.

We must learn to ride this “thoroughbred”, to jump the obstacles to our continued exercise of our blessed rights and Liberties. It is too much to expect to jump all obstacles successfully the first time we mount the “Impeachment” horse and race to Conviction.

We must try time -- time -- and time again -- to impeach and convict wayward judges.

Eventually “We, the People” will develop the ability to mount the thoroughbred named “Impeachment” given us by our Constitution. By trial and error, where we try and try again, we will learn how to impeach wayward judges, learn how to convict them, learn how to remove them from the bench when they try to steal away our rights.

Citizens MUST DEMAND our elected servants, not “elected leaders” or “elected representatives” but “elected servants”, men and women “hired” to do the will of “We, the People” to serve us in the Congress, to judge the ‘jaundiced judges and jester justices’.

“We, the People” must begin to demand Impeachment against the errant judges like those “crazies” in San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and frankly, even to impeach some ‘supreme’ Court justices, on both the federal and state levels.

Only in this way, Impeaching and Convicting judges, will judges be forced to behave and truly serve the People by strict interpretation of our Constitution, not liberal, expansive, and exaggerated interpretation of this Constitution, which ultimately undermines the freedoms enshrined in this Constitution.

Deriving sovereignty from God, this Constitution and the People are supreme, NOT the justices of the ‘supreme’ Court, and certainly not judges of lower federal and state courts.

On the state level, errant judges can be removed by direct citizen vote in some states, and in other states by indirect vote through our elected servants in the legislature through Courts of Justice Committees, or equivalents.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”

So both President Jefferson and President Lincoln say that men who pervert the Constitution, such as too many of the judiciary of America today, jaundiced by ego and self-pride must be “overthrown” as Lincoln writes, or as Jefferson writes must be “withdrawn from the bench”, as the Constitution provides must be IMPEACHED.

And remember that a third member of the four on Mount Rushmore, Theodore Roosevelt when he was 13 years old watched a Presbyterian pastor named Parkhurst rally the people to “vote out the bums” in the executive and legislative branches of the local government, and the newly elected servants of the people brought charges and impeachment actions against many corrupt local judges. These “bad behavior” judges were tried, convicted, removed from the bench, and many sent to jail where rightly they belonged.

Nine years later, Teddy returned from Harvard College, planning to attend law school at Columbia University. However, at age 22, Teddy was drafted by the local Republican Party to run for the State Assembly, and he won.

Once in the capital of Albany, young Roosevelt led the charge to Impeach the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, and succeeded!

Where today is a great patriot and pastor like Rev. Charles Parkhurst, or like legislator and patriot, later President, Teddy Roosevelt who has the courage to go against the odds to clean out the corruption of the courts on the local level or the state level?

And what about George Washington, the best of the bunch? He too had trouble for much of his two terms with the Judiciary, trouble finding qualified individuals to serve. In reality, how much different is that today? Are we served by the best and brightest, who also like George Washington did, consider themselves “humble and obedient servants”?

Below are some selections of the wise words of Washington to the Congress regarding matters of the Judiciary, so clearly Washington knew it was the DUTY of Congress to regulate, repair, and reform any aspect of the Judiciary that was found wanting.

The same rigorous sense of duty that saw him through the Revolutionary War compelled the fifty-seven-year-old Washington to take the presidential oath of office on 30 April 1789 in the new federal capital of New York City. Dignity, common sense, political acumen gained from twenty years experience, and a keen judgment of men's characters and abilities were his chief assets in dealing with the new Senate and House of Representatives, establishing general precedent, and making appointments. He had a difficult time in finding qualified individuals to serve in the new federal judiciary, but the heads of the executive departments of war, state, and the Treasury, were men of talent, integrity, and even brilliance.

Volume 4 covers the fall and early winter of 1789-90 and focuses on the problems facing the new administration. Many documents in this volume deal with the difficulties Washington encountered in his attempt to staff the federal Judiciary and his fears that failure to attract viable candidates for the Supreme Court and the federal courts would damage the reputation of the new government.

The address of the House of Representatives is dated 11 Dec. 1790 and was formally presented shortly after 2 P.M. on 13 Dec. 1790. The letter-book copy in the Washington Papers in the Library of Congress reads:
Having already concurred in establishing a Judiciary System, which opens the doors of Justice, without distinction of persons, it will be our disposition to incorporate every improvement which experience may suggest. And we shall consider in particular, how far the uniformity, which in other cases is found convenient in the Administration of the General Government throughout all the States, may be introduced into the forms and rules of executing sentences issuing from the Federal Courts.

Second Annual Message_United States [New York] December 8th 1790
The laws you have already passed for the establishment of a Judiciary system have opened the doors of Justice to all descriptions of persons. You will consider, in your wisdom, whether improvements in that system may yet be made; and particularly whether an uniform process of Execution on sentences issuing from the federal Courts be not desireable through all the States.

Fourth Annual Address_United States [Philadelphia] November 6th 1792
I cannot forbear to bring again into the view of the Legislature the subject of a Revision of the Judiciary System. A representation from the Judges of the Supreme Court, which will be laid before you, points out some of the inconveniences that are experienced. In the course of the execution of the laws, considerations arise out of the structure of that system, which, in some cases, tend to relax their efficacy. As connected with this subject, provisions to facilitate the taking of bail upon processes out of the Courts of the United States, and a supplementary definition of Offenses against the Constitution and laws of the Union, and of the punishment for such Offenses, will, it is presumed, be found worthy of particular attention.

It rests with the wisdom of Congress to correct, improve or enforce this plan of procedure; and it will probably be found expedient, to extend the legal code, and the Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, to many cases which, though dependent on principles, already recognized, demand some further provisions.

Where individuals shall, within the United States, array themselves in hostility against any of the powers at war; or enter upon Military expeditions, or enterprizes within the jurisdiction of the United States; or usurp and exercise judicial authority within the United States; or where the penalties on violations of the law of Nations may have been indistinctly marked, or are inadequate; these offences cannot receive too early and close an attention, and require prompt and decisive remedies.
Whatsoever those remedies may be, they will be well administered by the Judiciary, who possess a long established course of investigation, effectual process, and Officers in the habit of executing it.
In like manner; as several of the Courts have doubted, under particular circumstances, their power to liberate the vessels of a Nation at peace, and even of a citizen of the United States, although siezed under a false colour of being hostile property; and have denied their power to liberate certain captures within the protection of our territory; it would seem proper to regulate their jurisdiction in these points. But if the Executive is to be the resort in either of the two last-mentioned cases, it is hoped, that he will be authorized by law, to have facts ascertained by the Courts, when, for his own information, he shall request it.

Washington's Sixth Annual Message to Congress 19 November 1794, Philadelphia
On this call, momentous in the extreme, I sought and weighted what might best subdue the crisis. On the one hand the judiciary was pronounced to be stripped of its capacity to enforce the laws; crimes which reached the very existence of social order were perpetrated without control; the friends of Government were insulted, abused, and overawed into silence or an apparent acquiescence; and to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to violate the fundamental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.

So you see from a selection of the words and actions of the famous four of Mount Rushmore, that judges and the judiciary have been a source of concern since the founding of our Constitutional Republic. No where in these writings is the all too prevalent notion of “Independency of the Judiciary” described, or even much hinted at. In several cases, Washington is pleading with the Congress to act to control the judiciary, in the case two paragraphs above, President Washington is saying that if the Courts decline to exercise power to protect the rights and liberties of Americans, then as a resort, a last resort, he as the executive would accept that task, but still called on the Courts to be responsive to his request for information from investigation.

The current courts are far from submissive or subordinate to Congress or the President. The judges and justices have become haughty. Impeachment would be a cure for that.

Patriot with a Pen, with a Penchant for Liberty!

Thank you for being a Patriot with a Pen, and a Penchant for Liberty!