The American Bar Association Is Guilty Of Treason
There used to be a saying that all roads lead to Rome and today a large number of liberal organizations seem to be connected to the United Nations. That probably should not be a big surprise since FDR a socialist and liberal was a major player in establishing it. The liberal activist court owns it’s existence to him and his successor as all 9 Justices were at one time appointed by a Democrat President.
Now I am onto activist judges I felt a need to mention the American Bar Association which seem to be a type of union. The American Bar Association started in 1878 and it is a voluntary association of lawyers and law students. It sets academic standards for law schools and is responsible for formation of model legal codes. It claims to provide programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work. They also give a rating to judicial appointees. The ABA influence on who passes the bar seems to be indirect.
With all the power I outlined above the American Bar Association is a NGO of the United Nations pledged to carry out the principles of the organization. So what happens when the principles of the United Nations run into conflict with the law of the United States?
Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey wrote:
“Another goal is to utilize existing law in creative and novel ways to ensure both that animals are protected, and to stimulate discussion inside and outside the legal system about the need to provide justice -- and not just charity -- to the non-human with whom humans share this planet.”
Rutgers University is the state University of New Jersey as well as being on the approved list of schools of the American Bar Association. I wanted to direct your attention how this school teaches its students to be liberal activist and misuse the law.
An example of this activism is when the Clearwater Bar Association gave Judge Greer their highest honor for how good he was doing in the Teri Schiavo case before the case was settled. This is normally considered a form of bribery but not one lawyer is reported as being bothered by it occurring.
Another example is when a number of law schools sued the federal government about recruiting on Campus because they wanted to change the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
My sources are
Source 1 is Rutgers Accreditations page.
Source 2 is verification of the American Bar Associations NGO status
Source 3 is information about how to obtain a license to practice law in the US
Source 4 is an information page about the American Bar Association that I found what powers and influences they have.
Source 5 is where students are taught to misuse the law in order to advance their political agenda.
So since the American Bar Association is aiding the United Nations in its attack on the Constitution of the United States they are guilty of treason against the United States according to the definition of treason that is written in the U.S. Constitution.
Now I am onto activist judges I felt a need to mention the American Bar Association which seem to be a type of union. The American Bar Association started in 1878 and it is a voluntary association of lawyers and law students. It sets academic standards for law schools and is responsible for formation of model legal codes. It claims to provide programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work. They also give a rating to judicial appointees. The ABA influence on who passes the bar seems to be indirect.
Name:
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Address:
750 N Lake Shore Drive Chicago IL 60611
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 312 988 5000
Fax: 312 988 5151
E-mail:
WEB Address: www.abanet.org
Assosiation: Other NGOs associate with DPI
Main Activity: Human Rights
With all the power I outlined above the American Bar Association is a NGO of the United Nations pledged to carry out the principles of the organization. So what happens when the principles of the United Nations run into conflict with the law of the United States?
Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey wrote:
“Another goal is to utilize existing law in creative and novel ways to ensure both that animals are protected, and to stimulate discussion inside and outside the legal system about the need to provide justice -- and not just charity -- to the non-human with whom humans share this planet.”
Rutgers University is the state University of New Jersey as well as being on the approved list of schools of the American Bar Association. I wanted to direct your attention how this school teaches its students to be liberal activist and misuse the law.
An example of this activism is when the Clearwater Bar Association gave Judge Greer their highest honor for how good he was doing in the Teri Schiavo case before the case was settled. This is normally considered a form of bribery but not one lawyer is reported as being bothered by it occurring.
Another example is when a number of law schools sued the federal government about recruiting on Campus because they wanted to change the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
My sources are
Source 1 is Rutgers Accreditations page.
Source 2 is verification of the American Bar Associations NGO status
Source 3 is information about how to obtain a license to practice law in the US
Source 4 is an information page about the American Bar Association that I found what powers and influences they have.
Source 5 is where students are taught to misuse the law in order to advance their political agenda.
So since the American Bar Association is aiding the United Nations in its attack on the Constitution of the United States they are guilty of treason against the United States according to the definition of treason that is written in the U.S. Constitution.
posted by Kerwin | 11:13 PM
8 Comments:
I guess I don't get it. If activist judges are those who change the course of current law, then all judges are activists.
The only difference I see is that you disagree with one point of view and agree with the other point of view.
If you disagree with abortion, then the judges that found a right to privacy in the Constitution to find in favor of Roe and make abortions legal, were activist judges. They allowed something that was illegal, legal.
If a new court finds that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and therefore the previous court was wrong; thus overturns Roe/Wade making abortions illegal again.
This new court goes against the proceedures of the court system; acknowledging the precedent of accepted law. Roe/Wade has been law for almost 40 years. That does define the precedent of accepted law. Therefore the new court is also an activist court.
Again, the only difference I see is that you agree with the consequences of one decision and not the other.
According to the United States Constitution all legislative powers are reserved to Congress and all judicial powers are reserved to the Supreme and Inferior courts. To be an activist judge all you have to do is “interpret” the law in order to alter or change existing law because that would be violating the constitutional separation of powers. The Judicial Branch can not legally make law at the federal level so all law is either passed by the Legislation Branch or by the States.
A judge is like an interpreter you hire when conducting business in a foreign country. If that interpreter shows a pattern misinterpreting either side of the transactions then they are being incompetent and should be fired. There job is to apply the law in a consistent, fair, and unbiased manner.
Justices from all political leaning can and have also been activist in the past.
Of course these judges don't see it as making law. They simply interpreted the exsisting law differently than another judge. So over the years you get different judicial opinions on the same point of law.
It's impossible for a person (judge) to totally ignore or eliminate their personal values or political philosophy when making these decisions.
Some judges do see it as making law as they have admitted that they acted like a super legislature. I hope that it is a situation when having the power to change something to the way you believe is right overwhelms the judges desire to do their job in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. This would mean that like most humans they find justification for their actions whether the action is actually just or not.
Judges, scientist, jurors, historians, etc. should strive to be as objective as possible in order to uphold the rule of law or the like that they say they respect. I think that our system would be a lot more fair if we held our judges accountable for their decisions. As it is now they can say anything they please and get away with it. This ability makes them an Oligarchy limited only by the scope of the cases brought before them. This system favors the rich as it takes money to bring a case before the Supreme Court.
Most law is not as debatable as lawyers and judges make it. If a point of law is truly debatable and therefore influenced by personal opinion then it should be left up to the legislation to resolve it. A judge does have the authority to state that it is unclear and therefore unenforceable until more clearly defined by the legislation.
I agree, but these judges do it all the time, on both sides the political spectrum.
There is a process to discipline judges, but it seems to be hardly ever used. It should be used more.
We have lawyers writing the laws, that's part of the problem. They know how to write loop holes.
We have judges - judging - judges. That's part of the problem. If you file a complaint about a judge, the one who decides the validity of that claim is his superior, another judge.
Please, do you really think you'll get less personal opinion and more objectivity from a bunch of politicians (legislators)?
Let the legislators make and change the laws, let the judges, judge the laws. Please don't let the politicians judge cases, or people.
Yes, both branches need to do a better job. If were not happy, that's what elections are for.
You are correct.
At the US Constitution is now the Judges are accountable to Congress already as federal judges can only serve when the display good behavior and I do not believe that Congress has chosen to use that power since the time of Thomas Jefferson. The House has to indict a judge and then the Senate has to impeach him/her by two thirds vote. They could use the judges violation of his/her judicial oath as justification. This power in reality will probably be used politically and does give Congress a veto power over the Supreme Court. The problem is that the federal courts work to remove power from the states and give it to the federal government so why would Congress want to weaken there own power. The only way they would do it is if the people were to get together and pressure them to do so.
I believe that candidates should be appointed by the states and that the People of the United States should vote for them by district just like the House of Representatives is decided. This will not eliminate politics from the bench but it will make the politics match the people of their district. I believe the more powerful the judge is the less time between when they must face reelection so they are more accountable to the people.
Another idea is to place sports referees in as judges as they are taught to go by a rulebook and be unbiased. Lawyers on the other hand are taught to misinterpret the law in order to favor their client.
Judges do not "interpret" the U.S. Constitution. Reason: The whole People of the United States ratified the Constitution and it is written in their native language. When a judge, for example, "interprets" the word no as maybe, he commits the high felony of treason against the United States Art.III sect.3.
To commit treason it is required that you do it in service to a foreign government. The ABA partnership with the U.N. fulfills that requirement.
A judge may intentionally misinterpret the U.S. Constitution and be guilty of oath breaking but not of treason. Oath breaking is still considered a reason to impeach them as they have exhibited bad behavior.
A judge may unintentionally misinterpret (misunderstand) the U.S. Constitution and not be guilty of anything. If that is the case other judges should bring it up to his or her attention.
There may also be times when there is legitimate decent among judges. In case when at least two thirds of the judges do not share an opinion the will of people should remain intact. That means that is would take at least 6 judges to overturn a law.
Congress can make a law that requires such a two thirds majority as they have the power to regulate the judiciary as well as the executive branch.
Post a Comment
<< Home