Corruption, not the Constitution, stops us from firing the judges.

Remember, if you don't vote you can't complain!

Remember, if you don’t vote you can’t complain!

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?

The top guys and "experts" are only there to guide you. Remember, they got there because they are smarter than you and me.

The top guys and  legal “experts” are only there to guide us in the right direction. Remember, they got there because they are smarter than you and me.

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.

Here Justice Stevens is shown demonstrating the constitutional "hook grip" that is used to shoe horn in various legal arguments.

A  power lifter is shown attempting to USE the theoretical construct called a “constitutional hook grip” suggested to him by scholars as a better lifting system.  It doesn’t seem to work outside an academic setting.  The “scholar” who invented it is an accomplished weight lifter.  How do I know?  He told me he was.

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.

It is a little known fact that some original drafts for how to get rid of the judges included an idea that was later the basis for a hit TV show.

It is a little known fact that some original drafts for how to get rid of the judges included the words “you’re fired”.  They were deleted from the final draft as surplasage in light of the good behavior clause. 

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”.

Here is one of the original Supreme court appointments issued in 1789. The form has changed very little, though now it is common that the certificate be filled in before granting it.

Here is one of the original Supreme court appointments issued in 1789. The form has changed very little.   This one does not have any of the “gold stars” that are  attached whenever a Justice is able to discover a “new power” for the federal government in his opinion.

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!

One of my readers took me up on the challenge to find the language. She said it is right there. It's just that they used invisible ink to enhance the freedom factor.

This constitutional scholar took me to task on my challenge to find the language about mandatory impeachment in the document. She claims it is right there,  and it is just hard to see because they used invisible ink to enhance the freedomness factor.

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.

The judge made it clear that if there were objections to the ruling to step forward to the bench. Apparently none of the defendants went forward. So I guess they agreed. lol

The judge asked anyone who objected to his proposed ruling to step forward to the front of the bench. None of the defendants went forward. So the judge ruled that they had agreed with his finding.  I guess that means it was fair since the judge ruled and all.

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.

Lawyering up means different things to different people. Just remember, they are not going to play fair.

Lawyering up means different things to different people. Just remember, they are not going to play fair, we have to bring the big guns.

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.

My parents and teachers made sure I got plenty of Kool Aid growing up! It's fun and good for you! drink up.

My parents and teachers made sure I got plenty of Kool Aid growing up! It’s fun and good for you! drink up.

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.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

14 thoughts on “Corruption, not the Constitution, stops us from firing the judges.

  1. Kram

    I know there is no delicate way to unravel all the multi-jurisdictional interests and claims these persons produce throwing out terms, like interstate commerce, social contract, voluntary tax, all the while packing heavy artillery and unlimited financing to accommodate. I had a federal judge say “Oh, I can appreciate being very stressed out, if the IRS were after me.” Just that alone can sway a Judge from making a lawful decision in a case with these and that kind of backing… after coming to, what practical constructs can one employ to navigate zombie infested waters? Peace brother.

  2. Joe

    Well, we got a big increase in the traffic to our web site as a result the previous post on here. There were 12 direct hits on our web site tracked coming from here in one day. If the truth were told, the Water War Crimes story is stranger than fiction and the sudden death of 12 judges is only the tip of the Iceberg. It goes right into Buckingham Palace and Pierre Trudeau and a whole bunch of other insiders in Canada who were cheating . . . suddenly Trudeau’s son was dead – or so they tell us although no one ever found the body and he was scheduled to make a court appearance in a few weeks and then he disappeared. Weird.

  3. James Scott

    70% of Federal judges are jews. Until we are willing to say the word jew in a negative light nothing can change.

  4. Fran

    There is only one solution for the USA.
    A Selection Lottery system. No more elections. Anyone that meets the criteria, can put their name in the hat and come Selection day, a random selection can bring our next selected official.
    Elections always go to corruption.
    With a Lottery, the general population will have a good representation of the people. No more parties.
    No party politics, we will all be on the same side. No more need for lobbyists. Also the money will go out of the system because getting re elected will be impossible.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Fran, I don’t know if I would go for that. Better than what we have? YES. But I think the answer is in always always always decentralizing, minimizing and requiring a lot more than 50.1% to pass something. It needs to be 85 to 90% to pass. And to be elected as well. If we decentralized and required huge super super majorities, then you would solve a lot of the problems. Of course one of the biggest problems is public education. That must be eliminated completely. At all levels. along with grants and endowments and everything else. The people have to be able to at least have the chance to clear out their minds even if most won’t take the opportunity! lol. — L

  5. PTM

    So, Legalman, are you saying that Mark Levin is, is….wrong? That’s impossible because he is the foremost Constitutional scholar that ever was…until Obama that is.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well PTM, I have no idea if he is wrong because I have no idea what he actually believes. lol. He is not dumb. But what he actually thinks. Well, I guess we would have to ask him. lol.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *