Impeaching Supreme Court Justices………… “Most Americans incorrectly believe Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and therefore somehow immune from public accountability, but this understanding is contrary to the Constitution and detrimental to our Republic”

By Matt Shipley Thursday, March 28, 2013

Most Americans incorrectly believe Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and therefore somehow immune from public accountability, but this understanding is contrary to the Constitution and detrimental to our Republic.Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

mussobama (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Accordingly, it is for a term of good behavior our federal judges hold their office, not life, and they can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.Misdemeanors, as the founders defined them, includes attempts to subvert the Constitution through misinterpretation or other methods. George Mason explained that impeachment is for “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” and Elbridge Jerry considered “mal-administration” as grounds for impeachment. Justice Joseph Story listed, among other reasons for impeachment, “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental law and introduce arbitrary power.”

Alexander Hamilton and Justice Story defined “misdemeanor” as “mal-conduct” and Justices James Wilson and Story described “misdemeanors” as “non-statutory”, which means they are offenses for which no legal code exists.

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

From all these definitions and descriptions, it is clear the Constitutional framers intended misdemeanors to cover acts of political misbehavior, because the framers wanted to ensure every elected and appointed official at the national level is accountable to the people.A common legal maxim maintains all contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them.

To interpret any contract contrary to its originally understood meaning is deceitful, subversive and criminal.When the State ratifying committees and the private citizens of each State debated ratifying the Constitution, they did so under a commonly understood meaning to its words and clauses.

rprprprp (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Eventually, all thirteen original States ratified the Constitution and joined in union not only for their generation, but on behalf of all future generations.Federal judges who interpret the Constitution in a manner that distorts this original intended meaning are altering the Constitution by circumventing the amendment process in Article V, which is a breach of our national contract.

(Col Sellin) Founding Fathers Respond To The Issues of Today…

Founding Fathers Respond To The Issues of Today

Posted about 1 day ago | 0 comment

The Audacity of Truth

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. ..For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it – Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men – Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775.

Written by Lawrence Sellin

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them – Patrick Henry.

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833.

Second Amendment

Regulating the Militia – The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.

My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican,

 

sgtstryker (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.

 

Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

 

Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionst by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Be Patriotic: Become a Secessionst

 

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

 

Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment

 

 

 

Abraham Lincoln, his administration, and members of the U.S. Congress committed treason when they levied war against the Southern states in 1861-1865. This fact is clearly proven by the plain words of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution that defines treason as follows:

 

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them , or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (emphasis added).

 

As in all the founding documents, the phrase “United States” is in the plural, signifying the free, independent and sovereign states. The free and independent states were united in ratifying the Constitution and delegating a few powers to the national government (Article 1, Section 8), while reserving all others for the people, respectively, or the states, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If the American people were to be the masters rather than the servants of their national government, the only way they could do so would be through political communities organized at the state and local levels.

 

English: Author at CPAC in . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

This of course is how the Constitution was ratified – by political conventions of the states, as directed by Article 7 of the Constitution. Since Lincoln never admitted that secession was legal or constitutional, and insisted that the Southern states had never actually left the American union, he knowingly committed treason as defined by the Constitution by invading the Southern states.

 

Are Americans obligated to take up arms against would-be tyrants? ~ (“That “palladium of liberties” has never been exercised more frequently than during the four years Barack Hussein Obama has been in the White House. “)

In 1833, thirty four year member of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, wrote: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” (1)

obamadash (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

That “palladium of liberties” has never been exercised more frequently than during the four years Barack Hussein Obama has been in the White House. According to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), “…the top 10 record gun sales days have occurred since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last four years.” (2)

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reports that in 1944 there were approximately 192 million firearms owned by 44 million Americans. By the end of 1996, the ATF reports that…

rprprprp (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Pro Libertate,,, Obamacare and the Revenge of the “Secret Constitution”

 

romino (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

takethngsawayfryou (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Obamacare and the Revenge of the “Secret Constitution”

 

“[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, and to bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a general sense the will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual.”

 

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, III, 327, 330

 

isdees (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this — Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules.”

 

Vladimir Lenin

 

Obamacare and the Revenge of the ‘Secret Constitution’ by William Norman Grigg (“… the mission of Abraham the Destroyer was not to preserve the constitutional union, but rather to impose a new order – one created through aggression by the central government against the states that created it, and the people from whom it supposedly derived its powers.”)

 

isdees (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

“[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, and to bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a general sense the will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual.”

 

 

 

 

~ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, III, 327, 330

 

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this – Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules.”

 

~ Vladimir Lenin

 

GUNNY G: ONLY RARELY, I EXPECT, ARE SO MANY SCOUNDRELS AND VILLAINS MENTIONED IN ONE SINGLE ARTICLE!

The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

…..After a lucid explanation of each section of the Constitution the judge discusses how the nationalist/mercantilist coalition, led by Alexander Hamilton and his accomplice Judge John Marshall, conspired to effectively rewrite (and undermine) the Constitution almost as soon as he ink was dry on the original copy.

The “Federalists” (who would eventually morph into the Whigs, and then the Republicans) never accepted their defeat in the Constitutional convention (which created a federal, not a national government). Nor did they accept Jefferson’s election as president.

Thus, two days before his term ended the Federalist President John Adams appointed dozens of “midnight federal judges” and appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court on March 3, 1801, one day before he would leave office. Marshall “spent the remainder of his career finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate, and highly questionable justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited,” writes Judge Napolitano.

In his most famous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the constitutionality of both statutory law and the behavior of the executive branch. “[T]his means that the Supreme Court granted itself the authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void . . .” This of course has caused endless mischief and tyranny. This principle of a monopoly in reviewing constitutionality was not widely accepted, however, until after Lincoln’s war of 1861—1865 destroyed state sovereignty once and for all.

Until that point, many Americans believed that the citizens of the states, as well as the president and Congress, should have equally legitimate claims on interpreting the Constitution. As President Andrew Jackson famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it if he can.”

Marshall and his fellow Federalists, such as Justice Story, also paved the way for the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This clause only grants “supremacy” to the central government on the seventeen specific functions of the central government that are delineated in Article I, Section 8, period, many of which have to do with waging war and foreign policy.

This power has been grossly abused by implying that the central government is somehow “supreme” in anything and everything vis-à-vis the citizens of the states. This of course is a perfect recipe for tyranny.

Judge Napolitano recognized that it was Federalists like Joseph Story and John Marshall, and later Whig politicians like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, who would tell The Big Lie that the Constitution was ratified by “the whole people” and not as it actually was — by the citizens of the sovereign states, with their representatives assembled in state conventions. “That was both historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest,” says Judge Napolitano.

According to this false view of the American founding the central government was always the master, not the servant, of the people. This, too, is a perfect recipe for tyranny that has been made by tyrants everywhere (Hitler even invoked this argument in Mein Kampf to make his case for destroying state sovereignty in Germany)…..

EXCERPT

via The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas DiLorenzo.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo105.html

*****

“Lincoln increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and civil liberties. This opened the door to more unconstitutional acts by the government in the 1900s through to today.”

 

**********************************************
The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

DIGG THIS

In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.