Impeach Justice Roberts
by PolitiJim.com 7/02/2012
On March 12, 1804, the first generation of our Founders impeached sitting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. This Constitutional authority has been used to remove 7 Federal Judges and force many others to resign in disgrace. We submit that Justice Roberts has failed in his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution in at least 5 ways.
Chief Justice Roberts “amended” Federal legislation by rewriting the words of the duly elected Representatives of Congress changing “penalty” to “tax”. (Article I, Section I) Even should one accept Marbury v. Madison in allowing judicial review, never has it been found that the Courts could do anything other than rule on their constitutionality.
Chief Justice Roberts created a “tax” in violation of the sole Legislative authority to do whether by interpretation or judicial amendment. (Article I, Section VIII, 16th Amendment)
Chief Justice Roberts implemented the “right” for the government to tax “behavior” rather than income also superceding Constitutional authority. (16th Amendment)
Chief Justice Roberts did not allow the “tax” to be Constitutionally valid since it did not originate in the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section VIII) (Video explanation here.)
Chief Justice Roberts did not strike down the unconstitutional powers for a new unelected committee (IPAB) in the legislation to automatically pass new laws and bypass Congress.
As Chief Justice, Roberts did not challenge the refusal of Elena Kagan to recues herself, even after evidence was presented clearly showing a conflict of interest. (Judicial Watch founder, Larry Klayman, is seeking indictment of both Roberts and Kagan.)
I am aware some of these are not new allegations against a activist court. However, in removing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is our hope that a similar political precedent will be set that will have a positive impact on the lower courts and future SCOTUS decisions.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As we discussed in this article, the interpretation of the Constitution and the “final word” does not lie with the Supreme Court. Jefferson called that notion, “an absurdity.” But Newt Gingrich had it right. The Power is embedded in the Constitutional tools given to us beyond just elections and waiting for the “right” Supreme Court.
I would say to those who have a philosophical or moral aversion to this action – please read the words of our Founders on this issue. They went as far to encourage “a little revolution” now and then against government – even so far as taking up arms. In fact, the very early Congresses used impeachment, any with members who helped craft our Constitution. Interestingly, it was not the courts that decided Constitutionality. It was either the Senate or House, or the people.
I would encourage very religious Christians who feel similar reservations to reread COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine, which made a BIBLICAL case for revolting against the inherent rights given to all men by God. David Barton has a wonderful article entitled, “Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?” Christians might also be reminded that since our Constitution gives the power of government to “We the People,” we have an added responsibility to steward it AS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY over it acknowledged by God. Just as you would fire an employee stealing from your store or not obeying your directives on the farm – you have a God given authority OVER this government and you risk being a “worthless servant” by sticking it in the ground and not actively trying to make it prosper.
I’ve written some of the more damaging aspects of this decision here, and will post many more articles on PolitiJim and the Impeach Justice Roberts Facebook Page. PolitiJim http://www.politijim.com/2012/07/impeach-justice-roberts.html
If life were fair, every one elected to Congress or appointed to the federal bench would be required to read this exposition. Lord knows that they are barely conscious of the facts it shares. Their lack of awareness will be the ruination of us yet. It”s an absurdity that the common man, after reading this, is more in touch with reality and the Constitution than all the government lawyers in Washington combined. Ideally, there should have been mass resignations following the Roberts opinion but we are very short on people who will stand for principle over career security, and citizens who even know or care that their freedom has been tossed into the dumpster of constitutional treason. A.R. Nash
“The Law” is a pamphlet published in 1850 by Frenchman Frédéric Bastiat. A classical liberal “economist, statesman and author,” Bastiat castigated his countrymen for becoming “the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe.”
Bastiat saw France as a society that “receives its momentum from power”; a passive people who “consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy.”
The brilliant Bastiat did not share Mr. Gross’s fondness for French “fraternity.” “Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty,” he proclaimed.
“In fact, it is impossible for me,” wrote Bastiat, “to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.”
“So long as they expect everything from the law, their relationship to the state [will be] the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I hope that you are right. I am a lawyer (not a law professor), but I cannot make myself as sanguine as you are about the decision.
There is something to be said for firing up the Right’s political base (rather than the Left’s base from a decision invalidating Obamacare), but I wonder if this argument is not akin to a man, having fallen off the Empire State Building, observing happily half-way down, “Okay, so far.” The problem is that Obama’s “signature accomplishment” — so close to being wrecked — has now been saved by John Roberts.
First of all, Obamacare is likely to become MORE popular now that it has been “validated” by the Supreme Court (with a putatively “conservative” chief justice writing the favorable opinion in — to quote NPR — “an unusual left-right coalition.”). Expect to hear in coming months of the wonders of keeping kids on your insurance policy until they are 26, free preventive care, and coverage for pre-existing conditions (all poll-tested and popular).
Next, Mitt Romney is uniquely ill-positioned to take advantage of the decision because, while he may try to hang Obamacare around Obama’s neck as a tax program, Obama is able to answer that he only followed the trial originally blazed in Massachusetts by — you guessed it — Mitt Romney! I heard Obama this morning already making this argument. I also heard Mitt Romney saying that the repeal of Obamacare would not include the “good parts,” such as “coverage for pre-existing conditions.” The rehabilitation of Obamacare has begun, and the media will play along.
Wickard was the worst case that I read in law school. The possibility that you could be subjected to federal regulation if you grew and used your own wheat on your own farm for your own farm animals was astonishing. Now, Roberts has susposedly limited the “commerce clause.” So what? What difference does it make when the federal government can just TAX inactivity, rather than regulate it?
For example, the federal government passes a law that all health clinics must provide abortions. If you object, okay. You can refuse to provide abortions. You just have to pay a “tax” — one million dollars. What difference does it make that this is done under the authority of some other part of the Constitution than the “commerce clause”? Am I supposed to feel good that the “commerce clause” has been limited, when any payment can be — when the Court feels it necessary — characterized as a “tax.” thus tapping into an “unlimited” Constitutional power? Show me where in the opinion the “commerce clause” is limited. You say there were five justices who felt that the “individual mandate” could not be justified by the “commerce clause.” This is incorrect. John Roberts wrote his own opinion. The dissenters wrote their own. Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion. So there was not a majority to declare the “individual mandate” invalid. Their finding was dictum. They actually split 1-3-1 in their opinions. Their decision will have no value as precedent in the next “commerce clause” case.
But I am supposed to thank the clever and subtle John Roberts for this? The fact is that there were four votes to invalidate Obamacare (no severance), and John Roberts prevent it. There is no way to “spin” this into some kind of “victory.”
The Left is delusional in making arguments, but not about results. They know exactly where they stand, have long-range goals, and are not deterred by occasional defents. On the other hand, the Right is totally clear-eyed about its arguments, yet delusional about results and has no “long term” goals. We are just hanging on by our fingernails, and the “plan” is just to survive. So even when we lose, we work to convince ourselves that we somehow won . . . something. As the falling man said, “Okay, so far.”
Obamacare, which seemed inevitably destined for the “scrap heap” (at least the individual mandate), has now been “validated.” We owe Nancy Pelosi an apology; she obviously knew more about how the Court would rule than we did. The oral arguments are best understood as a “head-fake” by Roberts.
It is foolish and pathetic not to recognize this. We are losing the battle despite the polls that say that there are more conservatives than liberals. Could it be because we are so prone to convincing ourselves that we are going great, the evidence notwithstanding?
Unfortunately, all of the things that I mentioned have majority polling support. The unpopularity of Obamacare was a function of the “individual mandate,” which rubbed Americans the wrong way. I have already heard arguments from Democrats that (1) we need to move beyond the disagreements about Obamscare (now that the Supreme Court, oracle-like, has spoken and even a CONSERATIVE justice found it Constitutional) and end Republican obstructionism and concentrate on the economy and (2) Republicans should not object to Obamacare since it is just Romneycare writ large. The media is already picking up this “line.” I fear that Romney will have trouble making his case stick and will eventually move on to a more promising argument, the economy, which will disappear if unemployment goes down (or is made by Obama magic to “appear” to go down; the “Shadowstats” website, run by a Wall Street guy, says that the REAL unemployment rate — using the 1980 methodology — is about 21 persent).
Chief Judas Roberts did not do anything but knife 310 million Americans in the back. All these RINO/Bushiecrats writing this cut and paste bilge about what a brilliant stealth move he made, are just bailing water because yet again, the RINO wing of the GOP has been caught red-handed aiding and abetting the Fascocrat Party. What happened yesterday, was a judicial Pearl Harbor. But in the end, RINO’s and Bushiecrats will be sent to hell right along with Obamatards.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Roberts’ opinion is flawed as he started off with a good assertion, that the penalties were not valid under the commerce clause because the government can not compel people to engage in commerce. Where he failed is when he didn’t extend that to argue that just as government can not use the commerce clause to compel purchases it can also not sidestep the above by using taxes, fines and penalties.
All Roberts’ did was say what the others in the majority said in different words, and that was to tell us we are all slaves bound to the capricious whims of an out of control federal government.
I wonder which candidate will get the green vote? You know, Martians. Or the yellow vote…cowards. How about the Red vote…commies. Orange vote…tanning bed devotees. Dark brown vote…sh*t heads. Pink vote…gays. Blue vote…depressed folk.
O’ might not get the black vote however…coal miners. But he will most definitely get the dumb vote. Those come in every color under the sun.
And as long as we have one party that is hell bent on keeping the blacks on the plantation, that party will do everything it can to maintain the victim mentality and to keep racism alive. When people get that welfare check they view it as “help” when in reality it robs people of their self dignity, their survival skills, and their desire to contribute. How we get people on the “take” to understand that (or even care) is beyond me. We have to force people off of it so they learn how to survive on their own.
Stop denying our loss of freedom by imagining genius in Justice Roberts’ treasonous act. Killing constitutional principles in the name of short-term political payback is not genius. It’s an insult to every man or woman that ever died defending freedom.
Stop claiming that Roberts’ ruling is a victory because it created a limit on the commerce clause. The commerce clause is no more limited than it was before the ruling. Prior to Obamacare no one would have imagined that the commerce clause could possibly justify regulation of lack-of-commerce. Last week’s ruling simply confirmed what we already knew. But it left the commerce clause exactly where it has been since Wickard v. Filburn. In fact, the ruling explicitly acknowledged that the rule from Wickard is still the accepted commerce clause rule. This is the rule that got us to where we are today. Why is anyone celebrating this? The answer is: DENIAL.
Not only did the ruling fail to limit the commerce clause, it opened up a completely new clause for Congressional abuse of authority. Before last week Congress could not do anything through the tax and spend clause that it wasn’t authorized to do by some other clause. The tax and spend clause was a means to do what Congress already had authority to do. Now Congress can regulate anything, as long as it forces us to comply by “taxing” non-compliance. Any way you cut it, now matters are worse. Van Irion
If I’m right about Justice Roberts’ motives he should be impeached (at the very least) for violating his oath of office. It does not matter whether we agree that Obama must be defeated. It does not matter that Thursday’s ruling may get Romney elected. Supreme Court Justices should never play politics with the Constitution.
Justice Roberts’ statement that “It is not our (the Supreme Court’s) job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” is shocking in the extreme. This is EXACTLY the job of the Supreme Court! Our Constitution protects individuals from a tyrannical majority. Political choices of the majority can NEVER violate the God-given rights of even one person. The Constitution was written to protect THIS principle. Now the Chief Justice has told us that it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the political choices of the majority. Anyone tempted to justify Justice Roberts’ ruling by claiming that it was a brilliant political move has completely missed the point of our entire system of government.
Our Constitution is the only thing protecting individual citizens against a tyrannical government. It is the only thing that can prevent our government from falling into absolute despotism. In order to function the Constitution must be enforced by a Supreme Court that does not bend to political whims. Constitutional limits on authority must be absolute, or they are not limitations at all. Justice Roberts sacrificed the Constitution to political considerations. This is unforgivable.
It’s bad enough when politicians think like politicians: no consideration of right or wrong, only political calculation, despite the moral implications. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks like a politician, all is lost. Van Irion
Who Democrats Really Are and What Must Be Done About Them
The Democrat Party is the party of factional payola: it is comprised of factions who are united to attain power and reap rewards such as loans, direct transfer of funds, contract set asides, special legislation for special treatment, pay increases, and patronage.
All of their ideology is meant to accomplish is attaining power and keeping their factions united.
They have NO principles. Redistribution really means taking from the enemy and giving to the factions in the party.
They shift easily between saying that certain things in the Constitution and certain decisions are written in stone and others can be easily changed because the Constitution is a “living document”. All that matters is that the result serves their party and its factions.
This is why their “FEMINISTS” shift easily between defending Fluke from attacks to mercilessly attacking Palin with vile curses.
This is why they can attack Bush’s deficits and praise Obama’s.
This is why they hate small amounts of federal monies going to “Big Oil” – in the form of tax breaks – and LOVE the loans to BIG ALTERNATIVE ENERGY COMPANIES, which happen to be run by people in their party.
It’s all about supporting things that help their factions and never about principles or values.
The postmodern left controls the Democrat Party and they are moral relativists who hate – not just America – but Western Civilization:
They falsely blame Western Civilization – or Judeo-Christian Civilization, if you prefer – for
global climate change,
Third World poverty,
and most of history’s genocide.
ALL ARE DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
But painting the West as the bogeyman – and America as the Bogeyman in Chief – allows them to attack anything and everything in their way:
industry and industriousness;
and PERSONAL LIBERTY.
They believe and live by what Gramsci argued: traditional cultural institutions interfere with the advent of the Left’s control of the state.
And they need a strong state controlled by an elite in order to enact and maintain a state powerful enough to serve their factions, (and not the general welfare).
The Left has abused the general welfare clause by twisting it and getting it to mean the welfare of their factions. In truth, legislation that helps one segment of society in order to help another does NOT improve the GENERAL welfare; it merely helps one faction while hurting another.
If we really want to eliminate poverty and ignorance in the world, then we have to eliminate the postmodern left.
And that means eliminating the stranglehold the left has on media, and on education via faculties.
And by making our federal government what our Founders intended: small and limited.
Actually, limited government is the KEY:
If the federal government is small, then it cannot be made to serve the factional needs of the Democrat Party.
One thing should be abundantly clear by now – our country is doomed to ruin if this problem of congressional term limits is not corrected. Career politicians in Congress are running this country into the ground to promote their own self interests and gain.
It’s the same with the American voters who are motivated to vote for unconstitutional free stuff. We can no longer trust the electorate to do the right thing at the ballot box and vote in the best interests of the country, rather than vote for what the government can do for them. The “free nation” concept of the Founding Fathers was for a country where citizens accept personal responsibility for themselves and their lives. The federal government would provide for those things that must be done, but cannot be done by the states or the people.
Government dependence, promoted by the left, has reached the breaking point and if it isn’t stopped in the next election it will be too late. Responsible tax paying Americans will be the minority at the poling place and the problem will only grow larger until our money becomes worthless and there will be no money to pay for those promises of government handouts.