Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Santorum Soundbites on the Judiciary, 10th Amendment - By Joe Paloazzolo

Expand Messages
  • Ron Branson
    Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/04/santorum-soundbites-on-the-judiciary-10th-amendment/ January 4, 2012, 9:27 AM Santorum Soundbites on
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 5 7:11 PM

      Wall Street Journal


      Santorum Soundbites on the Judiciary, 10th Amendment

      By Joe Palazzolo

      Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum

      Rick Santorum’s loss-as-win in Iowa gives Law Blog a chance to take a look at his views on the Constitution and the judiciary. Fortunately for us, Santorum gave a policy speech in November on the subject. Dozens of people attended.

      A lot of this will sound familiar. Newt Gingrich has been advocating proposals similar to Santorum’s — like abolishing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — for years.

      The Iowa Independent covered the Nov. 4 speech in Urbandale, which drew a crowd of about 50, according to the news site.

      At the time, the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the Third Branch is less powerful than the other two, because it is mentioned third in the articles, after the legislative and executive branches. And since Congress has the authority to set up the inferior courts, it also has the right to get rid of them, he said.

      “They can establish them, and if those courts violate the Constitution and do things that they should be stopped from doing, they have the power to repeal those courts, to abolish these courts,” Santorum said, according to TII.

      Santorum said his plan for the Ninth Circuit — the “poster child for rogue courts,” he called it — was to break the court into two or three separate courts and replace all the judges. More recently, Santorum said it might be possible to “shrink” the Ninth Circuit and “put all the Ninth Circuit judges in California and maybe Hawaii for good measure.”

      The former Pennsylvania senator, who wants constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and abortion, has also been pressed on his views of the 10th Amendment. In a Thanksgiving Family Forum, moderator Frank Luntz asked Santorum, “Should the states be able to say no to Washington?”

      Santorum responded,

      I’m a very strong supporter of the 10th amendment…but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.

      Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong. And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that.

      I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

      H/T RedState

        • I have the solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems! Gay Marriage, Abortion, Sodomy, Condoms, etc. Give me time and I’ll outlaw alcohol too.

          America will not succeed until it is a Fundamentalist Theocracy! Then, God will pay all of our debts and the economy will be fixed.

        • ___________________________________________________________

        • The suggestion to abolish the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is intriguing. In support to such a goal I offer the following documentation. Back on Nov. 24, of 2009 a false and fraudulent Minute Order was created in the Los Angeles County Court System that stated that I was present and faced criminal charges at which I entered a plea. As a result of such alleged charges I was thrown in the Los Angeles County Men’s Central jail. When I got out, I appealed the so-called decision, which lead me to contact the Official Court Reporter and request a transcript of the “arraignment.” I knew that I was not present or knew anything about this criminal procedure. What I did not know was what the court reporter informed me, and that was that there existed no such arraignment, and therefore no transcript of that proceeding was possible to obtain.

          I brought this fact to the attention of the panel of the Los Angeles County Appellate Department who was considering on appeal whether to affirm the conviction and imprisonment. They refused to accept my challenge for them to contact the court reporter listed within the Minute Order and find out the truth for themselves. But they were not interested in the truth! They affirmed the fraudulent conviction. I requested of the court reporter to affirm by declaration the absence of an arraignment and criminal charges, and that no transcript thereof was possible.

          I brought suit using the declaration of Official Court Reporter the Los Angeles County and named all the perpetrators engaged in this fraud, including the judges of the appellate court in Los Angeles. In the federal district court four federal judges chose to recuse themselves from ruling on this fraud. The case was passed on to the fifth federal judge who merely threw out the case without mentioning the fraudulent conviction, or mention of the court reporter affirming the facts of no charges.

          Three days after dismissing the case, I appealed to the Ninth Circuit and paid the $455 filing fee. Five days later I was sent an notice of Intent to dismiss the appeal, followed by a dismissal of my appeal.

          I then requested an en banc determination of the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Dec. 30, 2011. I have pointed out to them that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 3, does not permit the dismissal of Notices of Appeals which are taken as a matter of right as provided by Congress.

          We refer to the courts as avenues of redress in the pursuit to justice. But what the Ninth Circuit has done in clearly abrogate their statutory duty to hear appeals from the federal district courts. If the Ninth Circuit refuses to perform its duties as a appellate court, they serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Therefore, I find the suggestion of abolishing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quite appealing to the objective of justice! I recommend we all use or search engines and search out the judicial accountability initiative law to hold all these judges accountable!

          Ron Branson

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.