We the sheeple all dutifully learned in our government schools that Federal Judges are appointed for “life” and can “only be removed by impeachment” which is “complicated” and rarely used. We are told that the tyranny these brilliant jurists inflict on us is a small price to pay to enjoy the brilliance of the “fine balance” struck by our founding fathers and blah blah blah. Always the same line from those who want to tell us what to do.
The problem is not so much the length of their term as it is them acting like lawless tyrants while serving. So for simplicity sake I am only going to address judges removal today, not their “life term”. Now the bulk of the arguments I propose here apply to All judges, but there are some MINOR differences between the supremes and other judges. I just wanted to mention that up front. But let’s face it, if we could “only” clean up the lower courts, that alone would be a huge step up.
So… are we the people stuck with “only” being able to impeach judges who just ignore the law and run roughshod over us?
Here is precisely everything Art. III of the holy constitution says about judges’ tenure and their removal.
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Where is the “can ONLY be removed by impeachment language”? Oh did I forget to mention that there is nothing actually IN the constitution that says that? lol. That’s right. It’s the same old scam they pull all time.
Nothing in Art. III even describes how to remove a judge, let alone LIMITS us to impeachment. Nothing. Just let that sink in.
They tell us the “judicial mandatory Impeachment provision” is found in Art. II, which is where the executive power is described. Basic contract construction theory tells me that this is fishy. But let’s not jump to conclusions just yet. Here’s the Art. II judicial reference.
and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The president “nominates” and with the undefined term of “advice and consent” then appoints the judges. And this connection is the alleged “hook” to why we must supposedly ONLY remove judges with impeachment.
So let’s look at the actual impeachment language, it is the last sentence of Art. II.
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.
Okay, so this is what we have to work with people. Let’s look at the language closely. First notice that the term JUDGES is NOT included in this section even though they were specifically mentioned in the list. That is HUGE. They are different from all the others on the list. They are in a different constitutional branch. That isn’t nothing.
But Now notice what the section actually says. It says that they shall be removed from office on impeachment. It doesn’t say they shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment. Again, let THAT sink in.
They tell us that judges can ONLY be removed by impeachment and they say this is the section controlling their “removal”. But when you go to look, there is no limiting language. There is no there there to their “argument”, as usual.
And why doesn’t it say “only” be removed in this section if our framers were such genius legal scholars? Simple, because the “civil officers” this provision is referring to all WORK FOR the president and he can simply fire those other people, because they work in the Executive branch! They don’t need to be impeached. They are rarely impeached. Thus no need for them to “only” be impeached. Ambassadors, chief of staff, Secretaries of defense etc. Every single one can be fired by the president.
This “impeachment” provision is there to give Congress a method to get rid of crooked Executive branch “civil officers” like the president, and the people who work for the president, like the Secretary of Defense, When the President wasn’t willing to FIRE THEM.
This impeachment provision is a check and balance on the executive branch. And THAT is why it is IN the executive branch section. Judges are not part of the executive branch. Thus they can’t just be fired by the President!
And now you can understand why the impeachment provision does NOT say shall ONLY be removed.
Frankly, if a junior lawyer brought me this constitution and told me that he was trying to draft it to say what they tell us it says about judges only being removable through impeachment. I would tell him that it was a nice first cut at it, but that the way he has constructed the document, it doesn’t do that.
You can’t claim that the judges can “only be removed” by impeachment if you rely on impeachment language from another section that doesn’t mention them and that does not state that it is the ONLY way to remove the people covered. It makes no sense.
What those who control us have told we the people, as usual, does not JIVE with what the document actually says. But yet we are told that it “is the law”. Just read it again and think about what I said. The provision makes perfect sense when read as I just described, and makes NO sense when read as they claim.
The judges are NOT mentioned in this impeachment section, because it doesn’t apply to them. I just showed you that. But there is more.
There is a fundamental rule of contract interpretation that says: every term must be given meaning if it can be. The law presumes that if it’s in there, it is in there for a reason. All the more so with something like a constitution where the wording is so allegedly “careful”.
The document says they sit during “good behavior”. So that MUST mean that they are not entitled to sit if their behavior is NOT good. And so if that phrase is going to mean anything then someone has to have the power to judge when their behavior is not good. And someone must also have the power to do something about their continuing to hold their position, when the behavior is “not good”. Do you follow?
Good behavior, and the manner of the termination of the appointment when there is no longer “good behavior” is NOT DEFINED, just like “advice and consent”, is NOT defined. And so, they are left to Congress to define for themselves as they see fit!
It is straight forward. The Senate, who gives its “consent” gets to define what “consent” means, and what “good behavior”means. AND how the appointment is terminated if the “good behavior” requirement is violated.
So with my explanation, the document, i.e. the constitution, is now read so that the States’ representative, i.e. the Senate, has the power to terminate the appointment of the judges if the term of the appointment, namely, good behavior, is violated. And THIS interpretation makes perfect sense. The states are not hostages to the courts. That is just something those who want to rule us have told you.
Do you see how simple this SHOULD be.
I am well aware that the holy founders used impeachment to remove judges. Bully for them. I’m sure those judges had it coming. The founders were welcome to do that. Of course I believe that a judge CAN be impeached because there is nothing in the constitution that says they cannot be impeached! That is not my point. My point is that there is NOTHING in the constitution that REQUIRES that impeachment is THE ONLY WAY a judge can be removed. NOTHING.
The Senate can set up WHATEVER type of judicial review and oversight it chooses to oversee compliance with the “good behavior” proviso the appointment is subject to. Just like they are empowered to DEFINE what advice and consent means!! There is nothing to prevent an ongoing review panel keeping watch on the judges and their opinions and when the judges violate “good behavior” as defined by the Senate, then the Senate could have a SIMPLE method to terminate the appointment. They don’t HAVE to impeach the judges. And if the PEOPLE or the STATES don’t like the oversight system set up then they can CHANGE IT!
And if you still think they “can only remove through impeachment”, then show me the language in the document that says that. You can’t. Nobody can because it isn’t there.
But there is even more. Judges have been impeached for drunkenness and for abuse of power. How? The supposed “mandatory impeachment” language says, “for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But drunkenness and abuse of power are not crimes!
Where do they get the authority to ignore language in the document, since the impeachment “provision” they are supposedly relying upon requires criminal behavior, but then in the next breath claim that their hands are tied by language that isn’t even in the document!!
Do you see? It is always the same. They just make up whatever they want to justify whatever outcome they want. If the words are there they ignore them. If they aren’t there, they read them in! What does it take for you to see this?
Now think about the Procedural issues at work here. The early Congress Chose to use impeachment. Okay. That doesn’t mean we HAVE to use it. Do you see the difference? Think about it. Who was there to complain? How would they complain? There is no mechanism even possible.
Surely the UNELECTED court does not get the final say on how the unelected judges get to hold their office. That is beyond an absurd conflict of interest, My god, if the people don’t even get to choose how to enforce this, then please, stop saying we are free. Just stop.
And do not give me any of this “framers’ intent” crap. I don’t care! Parole evidence rule. The document is clear! You don’t need or even GET to pull in extraneous crap about what someone said about what he wanted. You READ the document. And it is CLEAR. End of story.
But I have yet another argument that Congress is welcome to terminate judges below the supreme court without impeachment. The constitution gives Congress the power to completely eliminate all the courts except for the supreme court. Do you understand that? There really can’t even be any argument about that. Here is the language from Art. III.
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.
Do you see it? It says MAY. Not shall. That is permissive under basic contract interpretation. Not Mandatory. Thus Congress has the power to eliminate any judge’s job by just eliminating the judge’s COURT. And there wouldn’t even be a “good behavior” requirement. Certainly a party who has the authority to eliminate your job entirely WITHOUT CAUSE doesn’t have to impeach you to get rid of you. That makes NO sense.
And finally ask yourself this. If the Senate did exactly what I just said, and set up a judicial review panel and started reviewing and terminating judges for violation of the “good behavior” requirement, who would stop them? The court? That makes NO sense. The president? How? Just as a procedural matter, there is no way.
People have been so “scared” in to believing that some theoretical “constitutional crisis” must be avoided at ALL COST. Why? The entire system is already in crisis because virtually everything the feds do is UNconstitutional! What about THAT crisis? oh, that, we’re supposed to put up with. But the idea of the people taking control of the system, well that.. THAT is something that has to be avoided at all cost.
Look, all I am doing is asking basic questions and “lawyering up” the deal. LIKE THEY DO! It is about time someone did it FOR THE PEOPLE! Do you see how important it is to ask fundamental questions? And why they never allow these questions?
“Conservatives” politicians are always complaining about the “activist court” as though it is out of control and there is nothing they can do about it. They are just playing the people! It is amazing to me that people buy this crap. How can anyone believe that ANY politician is actually upset that the court is expanding the power of the very government they seek to run! But people still do.
Of course people who are NOT IN GOVERNMENT want the government to have less power. That makes sense. Where the fantasy begins is projecting your desire onto a politician! Of course they SAY they are for smaller government. How else would they get elected?? lol. But look around. There is no ACTUAL evidence of the government ever shrinking when they HAVE power. And there never will be.
The courts are the means of “legitimizing” the alleged authority of the feds. They are the essential part of the fake wrestling match! When the politicians do something that any 12 year old can see is unconstitutional, what does everyone do? Well the people have all been TRAINED that the “correct” thing to do is to wait to see “how the court rules”. And it matters not how obviously absurd the ruling is, like in Obamcare. That “is the law”. lol. Think how preposterous that is. Yet people run around draped in flags as though the system is genius!
Is it any wonder that those in charge have contempt for a people who will allow themselves to be treated like this? We are not prisoners to the courts. We can terminate the judges. We are in charge. Not them.
Okay, I can’t take it anymore. I am done for today. lol. I hope you learned something. I hope your eyes have been opened to the show they put on for you.
Take care my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, and tell someone the truth about the law.