Google rules the world...

My favorite? "Your Brain."

Impeachment isn't just peach fuzz

It all makes sense to make sure we have an independent judiciary. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have had rulings like Marbury v. Madison, or even Nixon v. US.

Yet I think that this must be an entirely separate issue from the "impeachment of civil officers" for a few reasons.

First, as we've seen discussed in the fed papers, the founders were definitely concerned about the separation of powers and the balance of powers. They were aware that if any one branch received all the powers, the result would be tyranny. Hence, the concept of checks and balances is adopted. Adopting a system of checks and balances in turn, means that each of the branches have a horizontal rather than vertical relationship with each other. In other words, no one branch is higher than another. [There is no "top" or "bottom" on a horizontal line.]

Second, the founders recognized the judiciary as the "weakest branch." The primary reasoning behind this view was the lack of legislative ability, or enforcement power, of the judiciary. At least, that's the way it was for the first hundred years or so.

Recently, we’ve studied cases in which the judiciary misinterprets (either deliberately or through misallocation of logical skills) past precedent and grants itself greater powers than its original purpose. This has been identified by general consensus as an abuse of office.

So the question is this: Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

Coercion through money or jail are out of the question because it is completely unethical. Even though Congress sets the salary, they can't deliberately lower the salary of a justice to get him to cooperate with their demands.

Impeachment, then is the method by which a violations must be dealt with.

We also know that when a senator or congressman abuses his office by either not representing the people or conduct that compromises his office, he is voted out or is impeached.

When a president abuses his office, the legislative branch can call for an impeachment of his person. The executive branch’s check is both legislative (the power to over-ride a veto) and the judiciary (the power to rescind exec orders).

Simply because the justices were not specifically mentioned in the constitution as impeachable does not preclude the capability.

Even though the Supreme Court was originally supposed to try impeachment cases (and therefore could not try be charged with trying one of its own members) is also not a reason for denying a punishment for an over-active judiciary.

First, these arguments directly contradict the very methodical and logical set-up of checks and balances found within our constitution. Why institute checks and balances and then exclude one branch from the system of accountability by making them immune to impeachment?

A justice who is aware he could be impeached for an abuse of office would tread more carefully in areas that he (or the very rare “she”) would consider “gray.”

Second, the constitution directly provides for the impeachment of justices for an abuse of office.

Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

The answer to my first question, I believe, is a resounding “yes.”

What, then, qualifies as "an abuse of office?"

According to the Constitution, an abuse of office would constitute: "Treason, high crimes and misdemeanors."

We all know what treason is, so I’ll start with crime. We normally think of it as a simple violation of law.

So if we catch a justice in black robes robbing Patrick Henry College professors of their red pens...It's just a bit ludicrous to assume men so qualified capable of committing such blatantly obvious crimes.

A misdemeanor, then, is where our attention must be focused.

Webster’s 1828 defines:

MISDEME'ANOR, n. Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.

1. In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

Technically misdemeanor and crime are synonymous. But note Webster’s explanation of the usage; he lets us know that a misdemeanor is typically used to describe an action that is less offensive than an outright crime.

Also, under the definition of crime, Webster details the action committed in order for a misdemeanor to result:

“But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c. The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.

Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured. But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.”

While a crime would entail a direct offense against "the laws made to preserve the public rights," references to a misdemeanor would be an indirect offense against the public rights.

Based upon the evidence, the conclusion is quite simple.
Justices can be impeached for abuse of office.

If this is truly the case, why is it that no one has the courage to do so?

For Whom the Bell Tolls

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

~John Donne

Today, amidst tears of grief, celebration, and apathy, Slobo Milosevic was laid to rest in his hometown on his family's estate in Serbia.


No man is an island...

The history of this man's actions, and their consequences, is no secret from the world. Responsible for some of the most violent ethnic cleansing initiatives since WWII, many wonder how he still managed to acquire the tens of thousands of supporters at his funeral this morning.

The concept, though, is understandable. People relate to those most like them, or those who represent something to be attained. As the face of the Socialist Party, Milosevic represented the common good, or the good of society and he held the values of an atheist. The people were tired of dry religion, and they were ready to see someone in office who truly cared for the people.


Any man's death diminishes me ...

After eleven long years ending in a "revolution" of sorts, it seems impossible to think that such a man still has supporters. I wonder, though, if people really know what it is to be a leader anymore?

Should a leader simply express concern for the people? Does a leader seek positions of power? How should a leader behave when confronted with things like slander or libel? Does a leader seek his own gain? A general consensus of current quotations on leadership reveal an interesting fact:

Precious few mention that he who leads must serve.

They mention things like inspiration, influence, teamwork, responsibility. All good qualities, certainly. But how do those things happen? Why is a leader inspirational? How does he/she
obtain influence? Why would a leader be involved in teamwork? How should a leader be responsible?

If these are the only qualifications for leadership, Milosevic had it all. He inspired those under him to deeds that even now, face the scrutiny of the UN for genocide crimes. He influenced those around him to hold certain standards of ethics; that one type of man is better than another type. He encouraged teamwork; working together as a unit gets more done than just one man. And he was ultimately held responsible before the world for his actions.

I am involved in mankind...

But surely, surely, there is something more? It used to be taught that before a leader is looked up to, he is first looked down on. When a man can prove himself a servant, only then, can he be trusted as a leader. Why? It's true that a leader must uphold the best interests of the people he leads. That concept has almost become cliche through over-use and generalization.
What does that mean?

A leader does not need to have experienced every situation that each of his people have been through in order to know the best interests of the people. He serves them best by finding where their values lie and enacting policies that reflect that.

Milosevic was not a leader by that definition. The people valued life, standard of living, and a government that was open to the people. Milosevic valued selected life, standards of living for the few, and a government that governed the people with an iron rod of authority.

There is nothing to admire about a man who did his best to see his own gain rather than the gain of the people he served, and it is sad to see a people deceived into thinking that a great man ignores the values of the people.


It tolls for thee...

What is worth mourning, however, is our lost concept of what a leader truly is. When the people ignore the servant's aspect of leadership, then that man is nothing more than a benevolent dictator; he uses his office to serve himself rather than to serve others.

Even though Slobo Milosevic was "just one man," his burial symbolizes something greater. The people who came to respect him and ignore his faults, who proudly carried his portrait, who chanted his name in real grief...This is the tragedy.

Yes, the death of a man, and especially one such as Milosevic, affects everyone, but the slow death of the value of leadership should surely sound the death knoll for all.