Federal Judges Sitting On Critical Cases Is Inexcusable



By Devvy
6-29-10

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

Millions of Americans are tuned into critical lawsuits that are languishing in the courts. Whenever someone writes criticism of the federal courts, too many in the legal community and clue less pundits all chant the same rhetoric: The courts must be independent.

What the heck does that mean? Independent as in activist judges who make up "constitutional" justification for their putrid decisions, i.e., the Bill Benson income tax cases? Prop. 187 out in California? Don't remember that one?

Prop. 187 was known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative back in 1994. It was to screen and prohibit criminals (illegal aliens) from stealing the resources of the hard working taxpayers of California for "free" health care, education and welfare. The people of California had enough. Illegal alien means you have no right to be on U.S. soil, period.

But, along comes U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and says, oh, no. California has no right to deny criminals tens of billions of dollars in freebies from the sweat off the back of taxpayers. According to Pfaelzer, the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration policy.

Here's a clue for Pfaelzer: We're not talking about immigration here, we're talking about thieves who smuggle themselves across our borders (right along with the terrorist cells we know are here and operational). We're talking about individuals who have no constitutional rights because they are not citizens. Prop. 187 wasn't about deporting them, it was about denying those who have NO right to anything in this country from stealing the resources of the State of California. The voters of California lost again to an activist judge who is still on the payroll and has been since 1978.

Had I been in Congress at the time, I would have shouted down the roof to have Pfaelzer impeached. When a federal judge rewards anyone, regardless of country of origin, religion or race, for breaking our laws, they don't deserve to sit on the bench.

All we heard from the "conservatives" in Congress was the usual huffing and puffing. A Republican controlled Congress at the time who had the power to throw her backside off the bench and send a stern message to other activist judges.

Marxist Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be Secretary of State under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

"This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government." (Judicial Watch)

"On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit http://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's recent resignation.

"Judicial Watch's lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. See Rodearmel v. Clinton, Case No. 09-171 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Col.)). The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. For more information on Mr. Rodearmel, see below.

"In December 2008, Congress attempted to evade the clear prohibition of the Ineligibility Clause with a so-called "Saxbe fix," reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration, has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, most notably allowing Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. These attempted "fixes," however, are insufficient, as they cannot alter the historical fact that -- as in Mrs. Clinton's case -- salaries increased during the terms for which these officials were elected, thereby violating the Ineligibility Clause.

"The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who held that Mr. Rodearmel did not have standing and did not comment on the constitutional questions. Judicial Watch filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Almost a full YEAR later:

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on December 31, 2009, filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court in its lawsuit on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer David C. Rodearmel challenging Hillary Clinton's constitutional eligibility to serve as Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al. on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia)." http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/docu ... 062010.pdf

Another five months pass while Comrade Clinton flies around the world playing Secretary of State, the illegitimate Obama/Soetoro administration's lackeys file a Motion to Dismiss. http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/docu ... 072010.pdf Of course, the Solicitor General is none other than butch dyke, Elena Kagan. Here we are two days from July 2010 waiting for resolution of a lawsuit filed in January 2009. This is an outrage.

How could Rodearmel not have "standing" and what is that elusive thing called standing really mean? Dr. Edwin Vieira explains it quite succinctly: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,â€