Restraining our Judiciary:

Impeachment!

by Chuck Missler

The government established by our Founding Fathers included the provision of "separation of powers" between the various branches to provide a balance of power.

Regrettably, the original checks and balances have been set aside in recent times. One branch-the Judiciary-has dominated the other two.

The Founders' desire was rooted in Jeremiah 17:9:

"The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

This passage encapsulated what Puritans, Calvinists, and others termed the "depravity of man"; that is, the unrestrained heart of man moves toward moral and civil degradation. Society, therefore, would be much safer if all power did not repose in the same authority.

The "Supreme" Branch

Today the Founders' clear Constitutional design has been ignored. The Supreme Court is no longer simply one branch among three; it is now, literally, the "supreme" branch.

In recent years it has even described itself as "a super board of education for every school district in the nation," "a national theology board," and amateur psychologists on a "psycho journey."

Far too many of our current policies on criminal justice, education, morality, etc., are not the result of legislative action but rather of judicial decrees.

Checks and Balances

It may come as a surprise to many, but there are procedures to restore the balance. The House of Representatives has the sole right of impeachment. The Senate has the power to try them.

Reasons for impeachment include the court's frequent overturning of direct elections of the people, their revision and modification of jury decisions, and their unilateral manipulation of public policy to their own social agenda.

Judicial Policy Making

If a special interest group loses at the ballot box, it need only file suit in federal court to have it declared the winner. For example:

* In Compassion in Dying v. Washington and in Quill v. Vacco, courts reversed the results of elections in Washington and New York, in which the citizens had voted to forbid physician-assisted suicides;

* In Missouri v. Jenkins, although citizens voted down a proposed tax increase, the courts nevertheless ordered the tax to be levied;

* In Yniguez v. Arizona, the courts reversed the results of the vote by Arizona citizens that English be the official language of the State;

* In LULAC v. Wilson and Gregorio T. v. Wilson, the courts suspended the results of the California vote to withhold State-funded taxpayer services from those who are illegally in the country;

* In Carver v. Nixon, the courts set aside the results of a statewide election wherein Missouri citizens voted to approve campaign financing reform by setting limits on candidate contributions by individuals;

* In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, and Thorsten v. Munro, the courts overturned the results of elections in which citizens in Arkansas and Washington had voted to limit the terms of their elected officials; and

* In Romer v. Evans, the courts overturned a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado citizens to forbid awarding special, rather than equal, rights to homosexuals.