mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-12-18 04:04:34 -05:00
166 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
166 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
OUR PROTECTORS
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now let's take a look at the branch of government which
|
|||
|
|
was supposed to be the protector of the American citizen.
|
|||
|
|
The Judicial branch! Many who read this would say that
|
|||
|
|
statement is the biggest joke of this book thus far.
|
|||
|
|
Really, the federal courts are required to make secure
|
|||
|
|
the people's unalienable rights by helping to keep all
|
|||
|
|
governments and officials within the limits of their powers
|
|||
|
|
imposed by the people under the Constitution.
|
|||
|
|
A look-see on the background and operation of the
|
|||
|
|
federal courts is first. The only court established by the
|
|||
|
|
Constitution is the Supreme Court. The authority to
|
|||
|
|
establish courts below the Supreme Court was given to the
|
|||
|
|
Congress. Under this constitutional authority, the Congress
|
|||
|
|
has established Circuit Courts of Appeal, District Courts,
|
|||
|
|
the Court of Claims, Customs Court, Court of Customs and
|
|||
|
|
Patents Appeals, Tax Court and Territorial Courts.
|
|||
|
|
The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in
|
|||
|
|
certain cases spelled out in the Constitution. By original
|
|||
|
|
jurisdiction, it means a case begins in that court.
|
|||
|
|
Usually, the Supreme Court has 'appellate' jurisdiction
|
|||
|
|
which means that an appeal from a lower federal court would
|
|||
|
|
be taken to the Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
However, the Supreme Court is not required to review
|
|||
|
|
all appeals brought before it.
|
|||
|
|
An action [case or suit] of certain kinds, is started
|
|||
|
|
in a lower court and usually would be the district court.
|
|||
|
|
If the decision of that court is something that a person
|
|||
|
|
does not agree with or feels the court made an incorrect
|
|||
|
|
decision, that can be appealed to the Circuit Court of
|
|||
|
|
Appeals. And again, if the person does not agree with the
|
|||
|
|
Court of Appeals decision, this can be further appealed to
|
|||
|
|
the Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
This is the usual procedure of the federal court
|
|||
|
|
system. A system is also available for certain cases
|
|||
|
|
decided in state courts to be appealed directly to the
|
|||
|
|
Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
This is just a general outline of the operation of the
|
|||
|
|
federal court system. It's not nearly as complicated and
|
|||
|
|
mysterious as judges and lawyers would have you to believe.
|
|||
|
|
They want it secretive to perpetuate their own fraternity
|
|||
|
|
and keep themselves and their brothers in business.
|
|||
|
|
The first requirement for the judicial division of the
|
|||
|
|
central government was that the branch be completely free of
|
|||
|
|
any influence of the other two branches of government. Two
|
|||
|
|
special grants were made to judges. First, that their
|
|||
|
|
salary should never be reduced. Secondly, that they should
|
|||
|
|
hold their positions during good behavior.
|
|||
|
|
The intention of these special grants were to insure
|
|||
|
|
that federal judges would be independent and be able to make
|
|||
|
|
impartial decisions, especially when deciding for a citizen
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
of the United States. Let me point out here, that all
|
|||
|
|
judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution, well, nearly
|
|||
|
|
to uphold anyway.
|
|||
|
|
Here is that oath: "I____________________, do solemnly
|
|||
|
|
swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without
|
|||
|
|
respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to
|
|||
|
|
the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
|
|||
|
|
discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as
|
|||
|
|
________________ according to the best of my abilities,
|
|||
|
|
agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
|
|||
|
|
So help me God."
|
|||
|
|
Pretty simple language, isn't it? Not easy to read in
|
|||
|
|
any double meanings. Since no citizen must obey any law
|
|||
|
|
which is made outside the authority of the Constitution that
|
|||
|
|
oath makes it look as though no one has anything to fear
|
|||
|
|
from the judiciary. However as we go along, it will appear
|
|||
|
|
that the oath has a hollow ring to it.
|
|||
|
|
The colonists had a great deal of trouble with judges
|
|||
|
|
who were appointed under the authority of the king. They
|
|||
|
|
were dependent on the King's will and good graces. If they
|
|||
|
|
made any decision which the King disliked, they were ousted
|
|||
|
|
from their positions.
|
|||
|
|
As a consequence, the colonists suffered one injustice
|
|||
|
|
heaped on another.
|
|||
|
|
Notice some of the statements in the Declaration of
|
|||
|
|
Independence: "He [the king] has obstructed the administra-
|
|||
|
|
tion of justice . . . Has made judges dependent on his will
|
|||
|
|
alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
|
|||
|
|
payment of their salaries."
|
|||
|
|
Angry statements are included to show that people who
|
|||
|
|
were accused of crimes were sent to England for trial and
|
|||
|
|
the right to trial by jury was suspended.
|
|||
|
|
The framers of the Constitution sought to protect
|
|||
|
|
future citizens of this country from suffering the same
|
|||
|
|
problems. Those are the reasons for a judges salary which
|
|||
|
|
can't be reduced and the holding of their offices during
|
|||
|
|
good behavior.
|
|||
|
|
And since federal judges are nominated by the president
|
|||
|
|
with the consent of the senate, the removal by impeachment
|
|||
|
|
still applies. Impeachment for federal judges works the
|
|||
|
|
same as it would for a president or other major government
|
|||
|
|
dude.
|
|||
|
|
The Constitution requires the House of Representatives
|
|||
|
|
to investigate the charges and the Senate to conduct the
|
|||
|
|
impeachment proceedings. This is an area which we will see
|
|||
|
|
needs vigorous research and action by American citizens.
|
|||
|
|
The first thing which should be pointed out is there is
|
|||
|
|
no authority in the Constitution, actual or implied, that
|
|||
|
|
any decision on a case by federal judge at ANY level should
|
|||
|
|
carry any weight on other or future cases which come before
|
|||
|
|
the courts.
|
|||
|
|
This is not the case today. Law libraries are loaded
|
|||
|
|
to the rafters with books showing decisions in previous
|
|||
|
|
cases which lawyers research and use as arguments to sustain
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
their positions in the case on which they're working. This
|
|||
|
|
is nonsense for there is no permission from our charter for
|
|||
|
|
government for such arguments.
|
|||
|
|
Each case should be decided on it's own merits and
|
|||
|
|
"agreeably to the Constitution and the laws of the United
|
|||
|
|
States." By laws of the United States is meant a bill
|
|||
|
|
passed by the Congress which, as required, conforms with the
|
|||
|
|
basic document.
|
|||
|
|
These books which clog a law library are not "laws of
|
|||
|
|
the United States." They are what legal eagles like to call
|
|||
|
|
'case law' and have no authority in the Constitution to be a
|
|||
|
|
substitute for the laws of the United States. This case law
|
|||
|
|
is a record of the case which was decided, if a record is
|
|||
|
|
really necessary, and cannot become public policy.
|
|||
|
|
Chief Supreme Court Justice John Marshall brought this
|
|||
|
|
matter to the attention of the legal profession in 1821 when
|
|||
|
|
Marshall included this opinion on decisions becoming 'law':
|
|||
|
|
"It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expres-
|
|||
|
|
sions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with
|
|||
|
|
the case in which those expressions are used. If they go
|
|||
|
|
beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to
|
|||
|
|
control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very
|
|||
|
|
point is presented."
|
|||
|
|
Even the Chief Justice agreed that it should involve
|
|||
|
|
only the case at hand! So where does the legal profession
|
|||
|
|
and the judicial branch find the right to say 'case law' is
|
|||
|
|
the law in any opinion?
|
|||
|
|
This matter of becoming "public policy" is a dangerous
|
|||
|
|
violation of our Constitution. By allowing this to occur,
|
|||
|
|
we are allowing federal judges to amend the Constitution in
|
|||
|
|
direct violation of Article V which specifies the method of
|
|||
|
|
amendment under our control.
|
|||
|
|
No where is there any power for a judge to decide that
|
|||
|
|
a particular school has to desegregate and by that single
|
|||
|
|
decision, make all schools follow the same policy.
|
|||
|
|
This is what is meant by becoming public policy. There
|
|||
|
|
is no room in our form of government for 5 people (a
|
|||
|
|
majority of 9 in the court) who are not elected and do not
|
|||
|
|
represent anyone to make any decisions which affect us all.
|
|||
|
|
NONE!
|
|||
|
|
They have no right to decide any social policies or to
|
|||
|
|
change our basic law by edict. They have no right to issue
|
|||
|
|
any orders which, because of a mystique created by the
|
|||
|
|
knights of the black robe, can become law!
|
|||
|
|
The lawmaking ability is restricted to Congress and
|
|||
|
|
cannot be spread throughout the government. By all the
|
|||
|
|
examples thus far, all these 'lawmaking' decisions, orders,
|
|||
|
|
regulations and so forth, are way out in left field. We are
|
|||
|
|
being overrun by power hungry men and women and it is time
|
|||
|
|
for all of us to assert our rights and demand that the basic
|
|||
|
|
document be obeyed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
SUPPORT THE SHAREWARE CONCEPT . . . PLEASE REGISTER!
|