To be Resolved by The House of Representatives in Congress Assembled
ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT against C.J. ROBERTS A.J. KENNEDY A.J. SCALIA A.J. THOMAS and A.J. ALITO
Article I PER: The Constitution of the United States (COTUS)
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Section 1 - Judicial powers The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior The aforementioned Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have in violation of the command given by the word "SHALL" in Article III Section 1 and 5 U. S. C. § 3331 “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads: “I, ___, 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 ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” or: appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads: “I, ___, 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 ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
have destroyed their own "Good Behavior" through "Gross Incompetence" or "Willful Neglect"
To Wit: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5-4 No. 08–205. Argued March 24, 2009—Re-argued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010 page 47 Part III C
"Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error."
The EFFECT of which puts any CITIZEN or RESIDENT at HAZARD of a CONTEMPT of COURT CHARGE;
who acting under the First Amendment's Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and the same Freedom of Speech they grant to Corporations for exercising the aforementioned Rights.
This alone destroys the enumerated case ruling and is self-evident grounds for removal.
ARTICLE II
THEIR folly continues as evidenced by court records, contravening the approved Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 52 Rule 52: Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
(c) JUDGMENT ON PARTIAL FINDINGS. If during a trial without a jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and the court finds against the party on that issue, the court may enter judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue, or the court may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence
TO WIT:
PAGE 2 SYLLABUS
Held: 1. Because the question whether §441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech, this Court must consider the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin. Pp. 5–20. (a) Citizen United’s narrower arguments— that Hillary is not an “electioneering communication” covered by §441b because it is not“publicly distributed” under 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2); that §441b may not be applied to Hillary under Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (WRTL), which found §441b unconstitutional as applied to speech that was not “express advocacy or its functional equivalent,” id., at 481 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.), determining that a communication “is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if [it] is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,” id., at 469–470; that §441b should be invalidated as applied to movies shown through video-on-demand because this delivery system has a lower risk of distorting the political process than do television ads; and that there should be an exception to §441b’s ban for non profit corporate political speech funded overwhelming by individuals- are not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute.
ARTICLE III MORE FOLLY: WILLFUL NEGLECT,
in violation of Stare Decisis Per:
Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)
A corporation, while by fiction of law
recognized for some purposes as a person
and for purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen,
IS NOT ENDOWED WITH THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF A NATURAL PERSON,
but it is an artificial person, created
and existing only for the convenient transaction of business
Justice Brewer concurring opinion with the Majority
and
"in a republican government nothing
can be more impolitic than to give
to wealth superior encouragement,
and facility in obtaining office."
Story, Joseph A. Associate Justice SCOTUS
Familiar Exposition of the Constitution
ARTICLE IV AND OTHERS AS THE HOUSE MAY FIND:
EXAMPLE GIVEN
the Defence of Marriage Act (Doma) and all Similar state laws as UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
per;
1)Art 1 Section 8 Clause 18 : To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
1A) it is not necessary and proper
1B) Marriage is not part of any " the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested"
2) Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A) it is a Law that respects an establishment of religion in violation of the aforementioned Amendment.
3) Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
3A) it is a violation of the unenumerated right of Marriage protected by the aforementioned Amendment
4) Amendment 14 -1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
4A) it is a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the aforementioned Amendment
5) Art 1 Section 9 Clause 3- No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
5A) it may be construed as a " Bill of Attainder" respecting this Group or as a quasi " Bill of Attainder" in violation of the aforementioned clause.
6) West Virginia v Barnette US Supreme Court
6A) "There are village tyrants, as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution."
6B)"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights
was to withdraw certain subjects
from the vicissitudes of political controversy,
to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials,
and to establish them as legal principles
to be applied by the courts.
One's right to life, liberty, and property,
to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly,
and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections."
6C) "we apply the limitations of the Constitution
with no fear that freedom to be intellectually
and spiritually diverse or even contrary
will disintegrate the social organization. ...
When they are so harmless to others
or to the State as those we deal with here,
the price is not too great.
But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom.
The test of its substance is the right to differ
as to things that touch
the heart of the existing order."
West Virginia v Barnette US Supreme Court 1943 Cited in N.M. Utah, Texas, Michigan, and Idaho rulings
also twice by C.J. Roberts and once by A.J. Scalia for an Unanimous Court
yet not in Prop 8 or Windsor rulings by Scotus
7 )Voting Rights Act Error:
In view of these facts, we are unwilling to regard the question
as to the meaning and scope of the Safety Appliance Act,
so far as it relates to automatic couplers on trains moving in interstate traffic,
as open to further discussion here.
If the court was wrong in the Taylor case,
the way is open for such an amendment of the statute as Congress may,
in its discretion, deem proper.
This court ought not now to disturb
what has been so widely accepted
and acted upon by the courts
as having been decided in that case.
A contrary course would cause infinite uncertainty,
if not mischief,
in the administration of the law in the Federal courts.
To avoid misapprehension,
it is appropriate to say that we are not to be understood
as questioning the soundness of the interpretation
heretofore placed by this court upon the Safety Appliance Act.
We only mean to say that,
until Congress, by an amendment of the statute,
changes the rule announced
in the Taylor Case,
this court will adhere to and apply that rule.
U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court Decisions 1793-1919 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurring in part, and dissenting in part
7a) The Voting Rights act has been adjudicated
and held Constitutional
and Congress did not change
it only re-enacted what was previously held by the Supreme Court.
The new ruling on the VRA is one of GROSS INCOMPETENCE AND WILFUL NEGLECT.(Shelby v. Holder)
7b)U.S. Supreme Court GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. v. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389 (1914)
Whether the enactment is wise or unwise,
whether it is based on sound economic theory,
whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result,
whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits
should be exercised in a particular manner,
are matters for the judgment of the legislature,
AND THE EARNEST CONFLICT OF SERIOUS OPINION
DOES NOT SUFFICE TO BRING THEM WITHIN
THE RANGE OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.'
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 540, 569
7c)From SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL,5-4
ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 12–96. Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013
Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional;
its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Pp. 9–25.
But a more fundamental problem remains:
Congress did not use that record to fashion
a coverage formula grounded in current conditions.
It instead re-enacted a formula
based on 40-year-old facts having
no logical relation to the present day. Pp. 21–22.
9-0 SANDIFER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. (9-0) No. 12–417
. "“The role of this Court is to apply the statute as it is written—even if we think some other approach might accord with good policy.” Burrage v. United States," A.J. Scalia opinion of the court
use their own words against them