" That
this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily
declare
that it views the powers
of the federal government as resulting from the
compact, to which
the states alone are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of
the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized
by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable,
and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states,
who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective
limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."
This
past May, I had the privilege of attending Family Research Council’s
first Pastor’s Briefing in Washington. We heard from many
notable speakers, but two were of particular interest to me.
The first speaker
was Jim Towey,
the Director of the White House’s Faith Based and Community
Initiative.
The second speaker was Congressman Walter Jones—a Republican from North
Carolina’s 3rd District. During the morning session, Tuesday May 11th,
after each man spoke, I asked them a vital constitutional question — in
private. There was opportunity for public questions, but I thought I’d
not embarrass them before the several hundred attentive pastors. I asked Jim
Towey from the White House about the constitutionality of the entire program
he heads as Director of the White House’s Faith Based and Community Initiative.
I specifically asked him, given the language of Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution,
which limits spending "to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense
and general Welfare of the United States…" if his program met that
standard. Just before he turned to walk away he said, "That’s a
big question now isn’t?" I find that a disturbing response from
a high official in the White House who is in charge of spending the money siphoned
out of citizen’s pockets.
It would seem he could not give
a reasoned response to the question. I surmise
that he did not answer either because he
is ignorant of the essential principles of the U.S. Constitution, or he
knows that his program is utterly unconstitutional.
In either case, it appears those
who have been elected to represent "We the People," have appointed
those who are deficient in the essential prerequisites for the positions they
hold. Before any official is given power to spend tax payers money, they should
be able to prove that they clearly understand and will only act based upon
the original intent of the Constitution. Later that morning I privately asked
Congressman Walter Jones about the possibility of impeaching the six Supreme
Court Justices who had signed the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas last
year. In that opinion six Justices admitted they were looking to foreign court
decisions in legalizing sodomy in America. In that opinion they overturned
previous the Supreme Court decision of Bowers v. Hardwick. Bowers had affirmed
that there is no constitutional right to sodomy. This court stated, "And,
to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the
case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court
of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an
affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate,
consensual conduct.
There has been no showing that in
this country the governmental interest in circumscribing
personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent." It
is clear to me that this Court admits they hold the opinions of foreign courts,
and international opinion of higher importance than the original intent of
the U.S. Constitution. In other words, these six Supreme Court Justices have
violated their oaths of office. When each Justice is sworn in, they take the
following oath, According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States
Code: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all
the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. So help me God.'' For a Supreme Court Justice to faithfully
and impartially discharge the duties incumbent on them, they must refrain from "legislating
from the bench."
In addition, each opinion penned
by a Justice must be congruent with the Constitution
and the laws of the United States. The original
intent of the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution must be
the guiding
force in their decisions not foreign courts or international opinion.
Each of these six Supreme Court Justices has clearly
violated their oath of office.
The Constitution is clear that Congress is to serve as a check on the
powers delegated to the Supreme Court. Congress
has been granted the Power to Impeach
any Supreme Court Justice who violates his oath of office.
This process
is plainly spelled out in Art I. Sec.2 which
states, "The House … shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment" and then Art. I Sec 3, "The Senate
shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." But when I asked Congressman
Jones if he would consider initiating impeachment proceedings against the six
Supreme Court Justices who violated their oath to the Constitution by ruling
in accordance with international tribunals instead of in accord with our Constitution,
his response was telling. He said, "If it can be proved in a court of
law that that is what they did." I’m puzzled. Are not he and his
fellow Congressman the court of law by which those six Supreme Court Justices
should be tried to prove they did indeed violate their oath of office? In 1821
Thomas Jefferson called impeachment a "scare crow." In a letter he
wrote to Mr. Hammond he said: "The germ of dissolution of our federal
government is in … the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for
impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day,
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless steps
like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from
the States." But impeachment should not remain a scarecrow. It is high
time we give this scarecrow a brain. To do so we must instruct our Congressmen
about their duty to preserve our Constitutional Republic by bringing articles
of impeachment against these six Supreme Court Justices.
This Constitutional
check on the out of control federal judiciary is the last defense
on the Federal level. We The People have the right
to "peaceably ... petition the Government
for a redress of grievances." Should that fail, we must turn to our State
governments. As stated in The Virginia Resolutions of 1798, "the states … are
in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties
appertaining to them." The time has come to revive the impeachment of
Judges who violate their oath of office. As Benjamin Franklin walked out of
the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman reportedly asked him, "Mr.
Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" Franklin replied. "A
Republic madam, if you can keep it."IOTC Radio is growing. We invite you
to listen in and give us your feedback. On our home page there is now a link
(Attention Radio Listeners) for your response to our Radio broadcasts. Please
visit our web site www.IOTConline.com. let us know what station you hear us
on, and tell us what you think. Institute on the Constitution Radio — now
on 10 Stations.
by Pastor David Whitney
