SCOTUS impeachment

[David S]

If you think the Kelo v. New London decision was a horrible violation of the constitution, here is your chance to do something about it.

To: U. S. Congress
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for the decision rendered in the aforementioned case, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.

Being from myriad political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that our right to own property is inalienable.
Sincerely,
Click on link to sign petition http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

Do you have a better idea? In my opinion the courts decision in Kelo v. New London dealt a serious blow to property rights, which the American people should reject. If we allow this kind of thing to occur we will simply sit back and watch as all of our rights are gradually eroded away until we are no longer a free people. This peition is a way to begin taking action.

Before I came across this petition I sent an e-mail to President Bush saying that the 5 justices should be impeached for violating their oath to uphold the constitution. I also sent e-mails to my state Rep and senator asking that they enact state laws to protect property rights. What have you done?

We can either stand up for our rights or watch them die. Which do you prefer?

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

Do you have a better idea?

A real petition, signed by registered voters in your area, sent to your congressmen. Get other people to make their own similar petitions for their area as well.

Have you done that yet?

I would agree that what you propose is a more formal way of doing it, but congress is not required to act on a written petition either. The idea is to impress upon them the need to do this. There are people in congress who already believe something must be done. Let's give them more reason to believe that.

[David S]

That was the correct ruling.

If you believe that maybe you should start a petition to impeach the dissenting justices. Lets through them all out and start fresh.

[David S]

That was the correct ruling.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before but please refresh my geezer memory; what is the reasoning behind that belief?

[David S]

That was the correct ruling.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before but please refresh my geezer memory; what is the reasoning behind that belief?

A18 argues against the doctrine of incorporation. He holds that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, even upon considering the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Therefore, he holds that states may seize private property as they wish, since the Fifth Amendment does not apply to them.

I would argue that most of the Bill of Rights does apply to the states as well as the federal government. The 1st amendment says; "Congress shall make no law..."  Congress specifically applies to the legislative branch of the federal government. So the First Amendment is clearly aimed at the federal government. But the 5th amendment contains no such qualifier. It protects property rights from all governments.

Further the second paragraph of article VI states;
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Finally as far as I can tell none of the nine justices claimed that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states. The case hinged on the meaning of “public use” not on the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to the states.

[David S]

If the fifth Amendment does not apply to the states then the supreme court would not have jurisdiction should not have heard the case at all.

I stand by my earlier comments.

[David S]

If the fifth Amendment does not apply to the states then the supreme court would not have jurisdiction should not have heard the case at all.

The argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and privileges and immunities clause still stands.

I don't recall the 14th amendment being mentioned in the case.

edit; OK O'conner's opinion mentions that the Fifth amendment is made applicable to the states by the 14th. However as I stated before "no " justice claimed that the 5th was not applicable to the states, and in fact the meaning of "public use" was the basis of the dispute.

[David S]

I said:

Not a single justice argued that the fifth amendment itself applies to the states.

Incorporation is a (fraudulent) indirect result of the fourteenth amendment. It is purely a modern phenomenon, not used in any volume until the New Deal Court.

Boy you really want to dig up the whole cemetery don't you. There is an old adage: "Be careful what you wish for."  Before you ditch the protections of the Bill of Rights you might want to consider; Does your state constitution provide all of the protections you are ready to throw away? Does it say you have a right to own guns? or that a search warrant must be obtained to search your home? or that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself? or that you have a right to a jury trial if you are accused of a crime? Or that the state cannot prosecute you over and over again for the same crime until they get a conviction? Does it protect you from cruel and unusual punishment?

[David S]

Looks like there's a lot of misinformation about what the Constitution says. I'll clear things up a bit. I'll preface these remarks by saying that most of the arguments I'll make are no longer applicable as per previous judicial shredding of the constitution.

1. The argument that the 5th amendment doesn't apply to the states is absurd. While most amendments deal with the powers of the government, the language of the amendment makes it perfectly clear that it deals only with the right of the individual. The rights listed in the 5th amendment are rights that all people have and cannot be deprived of by any level of government, federal, state, county, or local. If the amendment in question were the 1st amendment, which is clearly prefaced with "Congress shall make no law regarding...", I would be forced to agree with A18 that the amendment doesn't apply to the states (in fact, Massachusetts had a state church well into the 19th century).

2. However, the key passage in amendment 5 is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." One could argue that in this case, the property was being taken for private use rather than public, and is thus not under the jurisdiction of the 5th amendment. The only answer to this argument is that the right is found in the 9th amendments "other [rights] retained by the people." I'm inclined to agree that the right is found in the 9th amendment, otherwise common standards of justice would be set back several centuries.

You can download the Courts opinion from the Institute for Justice’s website at http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/
Clarence Thomas’ opinion answers your second question rather nicely I think. Unfortunately it is in pdf format so I cannot cut and paste it, but if you want to see it it’s on page 42 of that document.