The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Living and Breathing

7.8.05 @ 12:01AM

MONEY WELL SPENT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Condoms Over London:

If Geldof & Co. really wanted to improve matters in Africa, they should use their haul from Live 8 to hire a first class hit man to whack Mugabe and his cronies.

Life in Zimbabwe would improve immediately.
-- William L. Roughton, Jr.
Fairfax Station, Virginia

Mr. Tyrrell's recent piece regarding the savages of Live 8 reminded me of televised news footage I witnessed. The unwashed mobs marching in support of the event, I noticed, also carried banners proclaiming "9-11 -- An Inside Job." I'm too familiar with anti-U.S. hate mongering by assorted sanctimonious Eurotrash to wonder how that related to Third World poverty. I wonder who today in central London would still carry that banner.
-- Mark K. Zunk
Indianapolis, Indiana

Your article on Live 8 -- I LOVED it!

You got it right on! These people in Live 8 are all hypocrites to the max! I couldn't even watch, and from their ratings I wasn't the only one. Keep up the good work!
-- Joni Ramm
Los Angeles, California

Excellent piece on the "Live 8 rabble," and really enjoyed your writing on this bunch of nitwits. Keep up the good work. I'm an avid reader of The American Spectator and always look forward to your writings.
-- K. Kramer
Hammond, Louisiana

I sincerely hope the terrorist attack spared you further proof of your traveling misfortunes.
-- Marty Barnett
New York City

SUPREME COURT HEALTH SPA
Re: George Neumayr's The Ongoing Constitutional Convention:

Bravo.

If our Constitution is "living," is always evolving to reflect the ideas of the current generation, what gives the Court the confidence that the Constitution hasn't evolved beyond the need for it? Maybe we needed a Supreme Court in 1787, but now we have evolved beyond the need of those dead people. After all, that was over 200 years ago. We have evolved a lot since then.

Now that we know eminent domain can be used to raise the tax base, what about turning the current building into a restaurant and health spa. Great location on Capitol Hill; I bet the tax revenues would be fantastic.
-- Greg Richards

George Neumayr is the first to speak the obvious, that if the justices do not obey the law, neither need anyone else. If these philosophes wish to be Jacobins, then give them a ride in state, in the tumbrels. "Aux lanternes!" But though this particular solution is as justified as it is long overdue, it would legitimize anarchy, and should be held in check until a solution is tried which would both remove the miscreants and re-enshrine constitutionalism.

It seems strange that constitutionalists have not paid more attention to Article III where a solution appears in front of our noses. Article III states that "(t)he judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior...." (emphasis added). While it is established by custom that "good behavior" has come to be interpreted as "life tenure", there is no reason to believe this was the original intent. Had the founding fathers meant life tenure, they would have said so. "During good behavior" plainly means that appointed justices shall not be subjected to the periodic tests of recurring re-elections, as are the legislators and executive. And it also plainly means that when "good behavior" ceases or is notably interrupted, that the justice's tenure also ceases. And the founders would have been outraged by the suggestion that unassisted peristalsis and respiration were the defining criteria of good behavior. Most certainly activism which denies and ignores the clear statement of the Constitution counts as "not good behavior". For half a century, arguably longer, the Justices of the Supreme and the inferior courts have promulgated opinions clearly anti-constitutional by unconstitutional arguments, giving full justification for removal. Since there is no explicit statement that a supermajority is needed to remove a Justice, it is possible to remove a miscreant by a simple voting majority. We merely need to try.

The abridgement of free speech by the court's upholding McCain-Feingold would be a justifiable reason, but impractical since both the legislature and executive have already voted for that measure. However, several cases in which the justices have blatantly overstepped the bounds in siding against the rights to free practice of religion, attempts to extend legal protections to enemy combatants, abridgement of property rights in Kelo and the public declaration by a justice that he rendered his decision based not on American but foreign law are all cases which demand removal. The latter two instances might even be construed as "giving aid and comfort to enemies" and "making war on the United States". Placing foreign law above U.S. law is clearly an aggressive act, tending to betray America to foreign control.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Business, Religion, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa