The list of biased democrats calling for the impeachment of President Trump is growing… check here, here, and here. But the shrill shrieks for impeachment of Trump by the democratic party are only empty rhetoric designed to solicit donations for something which will not happen.

Under Article 1, section 2, clause 5 “the House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Under Article 1, section 3, clause 6: “[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. … When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Democrats must think we the people are stupid. Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. How are they going to get the House to impeach and 2/3 of the Senate to convict President Trump when its not apparent he committed any crime? Since the founding of our Republic other nations have attempted to influence the outcome of its elections. Does anyone really think Israel and international elites were not involved in helping either or both of the major party presidential candidates in the 2016 election?

The truth is Trump is not likely to be impeached under these circumstances and Democrats call for his impeachment is simply to rattle its political base (which by now should be almost nil) for political contributions.

President Trump, on the other hand, makes a good point that the present power of the Judicial department, especially the Ninth Circuit, should be more closely examined. Good reasons for Congress actually overseeing the judiciary include that departments regular abuses of power, some of which I identified to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and Texas Senator Ted Cruz in this letter, strongly support the President’s reasonable demands for better oversight of this nation’s courts.

The biggest mistake our founders made was in creating the judicial department, which has pretty much used every trick in the book to usurp power from the people and the other branches of their government. The judicial branch of government was supposed to be the weakest branch of government. But by eliminating the checks and balances the Constitution imposed on its power and the judiciary’s “over-the-top”claim to the power of “judicial review” reincarnation every time a new justice is appointed with the consent of the major political  parties the Judicial Department lays claim to being the only “check” on the other branches of government. But this is heresy; history being rewritten by biased a department of government under the Court’s questionable claim to be able to willy-nilly change the meaning of the Constitution even after the meaning of the Constitution has been previously resolved.

Our founders wisely imposed the Jury as the check on judges. Most judges, sitting high upon their judicial pedestals wearing their black robes, refuse to acknowledge this anymore.  But the primary role the jury is to play with regard to exercise of judicial power by judges is obvious. One who understands this is Massachusetts federal district court is Judge William G. Young. In an address Judge Young gave to the Massachusetts’s Bar Association in 2014 he states that each branch of the federal government was given two types of types of Constitutional officers. “The legislative branch that makes laws has senators and representatives.” The executive branch has the president and vice president. And the judicial branch has judges and juries.

As Judge Young points out the Constitutional role of juries is made explicit both in the language of the original Constitution and in two of the proposed amendments the federalists promised in order to achieve the ratification of the Constitution.

And then – and it very important to understand this – then in the organization of the three branches of government …  [i] n Article III, after those couple sentences of judges, it [the Constitution] says: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.” … And of course, people wouldn’t buy it, they wouldn’t go for the Constitution, until it had a Bill of Rights [guaranteeing juries as constitutional officers in both criminal and civil cases.]

But devious judges and lawyers began almost immediately to get rid of those juries, which were intended to be the people’s most basic check on judicial tyranny. It was our founders way of giving the people a veto on the judicial departments arbitrary exercise of judicial power. Another check on the judicial department’s improvident exercise of power was the Constitution’s limitation on that department’s authority to only cases arising under the Constitution, statutes, or treaties. But lower federal courts pretty much ignore these limitations when they want to and the Supreme Court is too busy to police and denounce these unconstitutional usurpation of power.

So where are we? Many would argue, including myself, we have an unchecked judicial oligarchy in which judges claim a right to rule over the people over the course of their ever increasing life spans.

This isn’t fair to the vast majority of Americans, who don’t have access to those doctors and drugs who appear to keep federal judges alive almost indefinitely.

Its not just weird, its politically crazy, that most of the judges still claiming the power to tell us all what to do are over 75 years old. One is still “judging” at 104 because the judicial claims judges remain in power for life. This is absurd and denigrates the promise that once was America, a government of we the people, to a myth which is not factually sustainable. How would you like to grow up in a generation where your great grandparents had the last say, even though they were cranky, abrupt, and knew virtually nothing about the technology of the present.

So back to impeachment. Our corrupt Federal Department (composed of mostly elderly judges or judges intended to become elderly in office to promote the agendas of the republican and democratic parties) injures, kills, and imprisons millions of our citizens with impunity because Congress refuses to oversee and impeach them. Because of their life tenure the grounds for impeaching federal judges is far less demanding than impeaching the President.

So why doesn’t Congress consider impeaching judges who fail the Constitution’s “good behavior” standard rather than attempting to impeach a President who presumably has both branches of Congress on his side for conduct which has gone on since our elections began?

Think about it. Even if we assume Trump has done something wrong, doesn’t it make more sense to impeach judges who do not exhibit “good behavior”  because otherwise emboldened by their lifelong tenure their behavior will become worse and worse, especially for the young? Human experience teaches the very nature of aging into the seventies and beyond promotes a callousness about justice which is inimical to governing.

If Congress is finally ready to perform its oversight and impeachment functions it makes more sense to begin with an examination of judges who can do (and have done harm to the people) over the course of a lifetime, rather than a President who is limited to four year terms in office.

Let’s make the issue clear.

In my opinion, even if I assume Trump is a would be dictator fighting an entrenched judicial oligarchy which has existed for years, I would side with Trump because the Judicial Department is killing and injuring more people. There will be no justice until the problems with this nation’s judicial system are solved.


Total Views: 2452 ,

About Scott . Stafne

Mr. Stafne is very experienced in property rights, including banking wrongs and foreclosure prevention; Constitutional Law (under the United States and Washington State Constitution); Appellate law; land use law; personal injury law. Scott has recently become a media focal point as his win record of foreclosure defense cases against the largest financial institutions, servicers, trustees as well as MERS have blazed the trail toward ending the foreclosure crisis and representing the rights of the homeowner above the profits and secret dealings of corporations.   Scott sees law as a foundation for establishing a system of twenty first century liberties for the people; and for removing that corruption of power within our government which makes the achievement of real purpose beholden to only money.   Scott Stafne has been an attorney since graduating from the University of Iowa in 1974. He worked for a large law firm in Indianapolis (Baker & Daniels) for two years. Thereafter, he moved to Seattle Washington in order to obtain a Masters of Law degree from the University of Washington, which he obtained in 1977. Scott practiced law while going to graduate school and has practiced ever since.   This is a personal blog, and does not constitute legal advice in any form, and is not necessarily reflective of the policies or opinions of Stafne Law Firm. Visit the Law Firm: Visit the Google+ Page: Visit the Facebook Page:   *Web Developer: David J. Posel
Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed