Common Sense a cry for freedom from tyranny
Logical Barbarian
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html>
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. --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, laying 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.
<end cite>
The Supreme Court and the inferior courts are a corrupt arm of are
government because it has abandoned the precepts by which the
Constitution has was set up and instigated its own believes. Instead
of Judging by the Rule of Law both liberals and conservative rule by
their own subjective ideals. I have heard both conservatives and
liberal complain about it. Yet they are happy when the courts rulings
agree with their ideology. I am not happy even when the corrupt courts
agree with me because many have died and been disabled so that I would
be free and have the right to determine my own fate through voting.
The courts have denied me my right to effect the government through
voting by altering the meaning of existing rules, and creating new
rules when they desired. They were given the judicial power and none
other according to the Constitution, but like corrupt people everywhere
they are not happy with that limit and have took on themselves the
legislative power that is not theirs. They are not elected officials
and have no limit on how long they serve except their own desire or
fate whichever occurs first. I want my right to vote to mean
something, and I am tired of getting these judicial tyrants approval of
my actions. They need to be brought into line with their duty to
uphold the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States instead
of their own personal and political agendas. We need to demand freedom
from judicial tyranny.
ray
"Logical Barbarian" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then an Amendment to get rid of appointed judges is needed. All judges
should be elected by the people and have limits on each term served.
Logical Barbarian
> Then an Amendment to get rid of appointed judges is needed.
<cite of the constitution from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section4>
Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.
<end cite>
We have an section in the Constitution that allows congress to impeach
civil servants for treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors
and judges are civil servants. If you can impeach a judge for a
misdemeanor then you can certainly impeach a judge for misusing his/her
position for advancing a personal or political agenda. Congress just
seem reluctant to do so.
> All judges should be elected by the people
Judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress which
is too political a process as it stands yet I do not believe that
making judges elected officials will improve it. I would favor instead
a criteria of correctly using the law an applicant must meet before
becoming a judge. Also they should have to progress through the ranks.
We the people would have to hold Congress and the President in check.
> have limits on each term serve
This shouldn't be necessary in an ideal system but since no system is
idea so it sounds like a good idea to give judges a time limit for each
term in office.
<Cite from the Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html>
Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall
be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ....
<end cite>
I mentioned this cite because it brought a couple of ideals to my mind.
If Congress has the ability to establish inferior courts at need then
does it have the abolish them when they are no longer needed? Can
Congress restructure the inferior courts when they feel there is a
need. I mention this because I know of people who have been laid off
because of restructuring and job elimination.
ray
"Logical Barbarian" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>
> > Then an Amendment to get rid of appointed judges is needed.
>
> <cite of the constitution from
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section4>
> Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
> officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on
> impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
> crimes and misdemeanors.
> <end cite>
>
> We have an section in the Constitution that allows congress to impeach
> civil servants for treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors
> and judges are civil servants. If you can impeach a judge for a
> misdemeanor then you can certainly impeach a judge for misusing his/her
> position for advancing a personal or political agenda. Congress just
> seem reluctant to do so.
And rightly so. If you think we have bias in our political system now,
think of what it would be like if Congress ever elected to exercise such
a right. Think of the retaliation of the minority. Believe it or not,
there are still people out there that believe Clinton got impeached
because of a "blow job." If you promote a lie long enough, there will
be a good percentage of people that would believe such a lie.
> > All judges should be elected by the people
>
> Judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress which
> is too political a process as it stands yet I do not believe that
> making judges elected officials will improve it. I would favor instead
> a criteria of correctly using the law an applicant must meet before
> becoming a judge. Also they should have to progress through the ranks.
> We the people would have to hold Congress and the President in check.
And we could do so by making all judicial members elected. Partisanship
plays much more of an important role today than the quality or ability
of a nominee. It's going on today.
> > have limits on each term serve
>
> This shouldn't be necessary in an ideal system but since no system is
> idea so it sounds like a good idea to give judges a time limit for each
> term in office.
>
> <Cite from the Constitution
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html>
> Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall
> be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the
> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ....
> <end cite>
>
> I mentioned this cite because it brought a couple of ideals to my mind.
> If Congress has the ability to establish inferior courts at need then
> does it have the abolish them when they are no longer needed? Can
> Congress restructure the inferior courts when they feel there is a
> need. I mention this because I know of people who have been laid off
> because of restructuring and job elimination.
Well if we could get all sectors of Government to conduct themselves as
the private market, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.
When the Government runs low on money, they raise taxes. It's been
going on in many states these last few years. They don't once think of
cutting unnecessary jobs; they only extract more money from society.
Private Industry doesn't work this way and neither does personal
finances at home. When the budget is tight, you don't keep spending,
you stop spending.
I don't know what it would take to rid our country of the lesser courts,
but again, you are stepping on toes if you could do this. It's like a
secret club. I used to have a friend (somewhat wealthy) who constantly
got speeding tickets. When he got one of those tickets, he called his
lawyer, the lawyer went to court for him and he always got away with
only paying a fine and never got points on his license. His lawyer
simply pleaded "no contest" and that was the end of that. He just paid
his lawyer and off he went only to get another ticket a few months
later. Never had an increase in his insurance--never had his license
suspended.
Now if you or I were to go to the very same court, do the exact same
thing as a lawyer, you would be getting points and your insurance would
go up. Judges frown on those of us who don't hire members of their
club. So if Congress were to eliminate lower courts somehow, they would
be paying a price down the road. We have created a monster with our
court system here in this country.
Logical Barbarian
> And rightly so. If you think we have bias in our political system
now,
> think of what it would be like if Congress ever elected to exercise
such
> a right. Think of the retaliation of the minority. Believe it or not,
> there are still people out there that believe Clinton got impeached
> because of a "blow job." If you promote a lie long enough, there will
> be a good percentage of people that would believe such a lie.
<cite from Article I Section 3 of the Constitution located at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html>
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.
<end cite>
Impeaching someone is not easy. And we the American voters are able to
vote out a Senators every six years if we feel they are doing a poor
job. Clinton had impeachment proceedings leveled against him for lying
under oath about his adulterous affair. Which is a reason to impeach
but even then he did not get impeached. Impeaching a judge for
violating his or her oath of office is a lot better reason. My largest
concern about the Senate is their using the power to harass judges.
Still we do vote for the Senate and have a control over their
shenanigans.
> And we could do so by making all judicial members elected.
What I find troublesome about citizens directly electing judges is we
tend to elect on popularity and political issues neither one are good
reasons to elect a judge. As it is today the President appoints judges
based on politics and congress approves them based on the same thing
which has proved to an equally poor method. My suggestion that judges
needed to serve time in a lower court before being raised to a higher
court was to give ammunition to use in getting him/her denied a higher
appointment.
> Partisanship plays much more of an important role today than the
quality or ability
> of a nominee. It's going on today.
I do not like the party system and would like too see it abolished as I
believe it is undemocratic.
> Well if we could get all sectors of Government to conduct themselves
as
> the private market, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.
> When the Government runs low on money, they raise taxes. It's been
> going on in many states these last few years. They don't once think
of
> cutting unnecessary jobs; they only extract more money from society.
> Private Industry doesn't work this way and neither does personal
> finances at home. When the budget is tight, you don't keep spending,
> you stop spending.
The bottom line at companies is making money while the bottom line in
government is getting votes. We the people need to hold our elected
official accountable for their monetary excesses which is hard to do
under the current party system.
> So if Congress were to eliminate lower courts somehow, they would
> be paying a price down the road. We have created a monster with our
> court system here in this country.
They would not have to eliminate them. They could reorganize them to
give the courts a more balanced caseload, put a limit on the time a
judge served, change the process of appointing a judge for them and
other things. Yes even then they would step on toes but it is said
"you have to break eggs to make an omelet." The question is will
Congress do it.
> I used to have a friend (somewhat wealthy) who constantly
> got speeding tickets. When he got one of those tickets, he called his
> lawyer, the lawyer went to court for him and he always got away with
> only paying a fine and never got points on his license. His lawyer
> simply pleaded "no contest" and that was the end of that. He just
paid
> his lawyer and off he went only to get another ticket a few months
> later. Never had an increase in his insurance--never had his license
> suspended.
My brother in law, a union worker, got his union lawyer to do the same
for many years until the union said enough. The lawyer negotiated with
the judge to get the speeding ticked plea bargained to a non-moving
violation. You do have to pay a lawyer more than the cost of the
speeding ticket to get this done but many do just that in our money
oriented society. I agree our court system is a monster but I believe
we Americans can change it if we put enough pressure on our elected
officials.
ray
"Logical Barbarian" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, Clinton was impeached but wasn't thrown out of office.
Impeachment does not mean getting kicked out.
> > And we could do so by making all judicial members elected.
>
> What I find troublesome about citizens directly electing judges is we
> tend to elect on popularity and political issues neither one are good
> reasons to elect a judge. As it is today the President appoints judges
> based on politics and congress approves them based on the same thing
> which has proved to an equally poor method. My suggestion that judges
> needed to serve time in a lower court before being raised to a higher
> court was to give ammunition to use in getting him/her denied a higher
> appointment.
But experience is not the problem with these judges. All judges have a
vast amount of experience in the judicial system. The real problem is
the bias of these judges.
> > Partisanship plays much more of an important role today than the
> quality or ability
> > of a nominee. It's going on today.
>
> I do not like the party system and would like too see it abolished as I
> believe it is undemocratic.
>
> > Well if we could get all sectors of Government to conduct themselves
> as
> > the private market, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.
>
> > When the Government runs low on money, they raise taxes. It's been
> > going on in many states these last few years. They don't once think
> of
> > cutting unnecessary jobs; they only extract more money from society.
> > Private Industry doesn't work this way and neither does personal
> > finances at home. When the budget is tight, you don't keep spending,
> > you stop spending.
>
> The bottom line at companies is making money while the bottom line in
> government is getting votes. We the people need to hold our elected
> official accountable for their monetary excesses which is hard to do
> under the current party system.
Agreed, but how many people really pay attention? For instance, in my
local paper, I read an article about how you can apply for home
improvement money. As it turns out, the Federal Government gave our
County money to distribute to our suburb to paint your home or put up a
fence. When in hell did the Federal Government get involved in fixing
up houses?
They are allowing people to apply for this money (anywhere from $500.00
to $2,000.00) to fix up their home. The only stipulation is that you
must make under $27,000.00 per year as a family or $21,500 for a single
person. But I would bet that if you asked 1000 people who read that
article where this money came from, about 100 would be able to tell you
that it came from the Federal Government. And I'm sure that part of the
back-scratching process among our Congress allowed many cities to get
such money. The entire system needs to be changed.
> > So if Congress were to eliminate lower courts somehow, they would
> > be paying a price down the road. We have created a monster with our
> > court system here in this country.
>
> They would not have to eliminate them. They could reorganize them to
> give the courts a more balanced caseload, put a limit on the time a
> judge served, change the process of appointing a judge for them and
> other things. Yes even then they would step on toes but it is said
> "you have to break eggs to make an omelet." The question is will
> Congress do it.
Only if there is a uproar among the people.
Ray Fischer
> "Logical Barbarian" <kerwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What I find troublesome about citizens directly electing judges is we
>> tend to elect on popularity and political issues neither one are good
>> reasons to elect a judge. As it is today the President appoints judges
>> based on politics and congress approves them based on the same thing
>> which has proved to an equally poor method. My suggestion that judges
>> needed to serve time in a lower court before being raised to a higher
>> court was to give ammunition to use in getting him/her denied a higher
>> appointment.
>
>But experience is not the problem with these judges. All judges have a
>vast amount of experience in the judicial system. The real problem is
>the bias of these judges.
Just because a few extremist republicans like DeLay think that they are
above the law doesn't mean that judges should go along.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
ray
rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Oh come on with this DeLay thing. All he is is the neo Newt Gingrich.
Logical Barbarian
> Just because a few extremist republicans like DeLay think that they
are
> above the law doesn't mean that judges should go along.
The situation that is causing problems is not the extremist legislature
members, but it is the extremist judges.
Ray Fischer
The problem is with you stupid brownshirts who parrot all the latest
hate from the Republcians extremists.
Finding extremist republicans is easy. Can you find these "extremist
judges"? I'd bet you can't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net