From the May 2005 Idaho Observer:

Impeach federal judges?

The federal judiciary has become so out of touch with reality that liberal and conservative members of Congress, liberal and conservative citizens and groups are all clamoring to impeach judges who rule ridiculously on high profile issues. In his state of the judiciary this year, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist even cautioned against impeachment of judges—a powerful indication that impeachment is a good idea.

by Augustus Blacksone

It was a long time coming, but it seems that a lot of notable individuals and national organizations in this country are setting aside their differences and rallying to the banner of impeachment of federal judges. So long as the focus stays on the BAR maggots, who are actually the source of the problem, I can think no better way to re-institute actual justice in our courts. Impeachment does not abolish the office. It removes the occupant. And that is as it should be.

What concerns me about the mainstream advocacy is the under-tone suggesting subornation of the judicial power to the legislative and executive powers. That notion is patently unconstitutional. It destroys the carefully-crafted checks and balances between the three separate powers which "We the People" established with the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, it is intended that the judicial power be autonomous and largely "immune" from-the other two powers of government administration, but not from the People themselves! The Constitution provides the People’s remedy through impeachment and extends it to all three branches under Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7, Article II, Section 4 and Article III, Section 2, Clause 3.

That judges are not "immune" from We the People is made apparent by the guarantee of Article IV, Section 4, the "good Behavior" condition on tenure in office requirement of Article III, Section 1 and the Oath of fidelity requirement of Article VI, Section 3.

The Article VI Oath is a requisite to any exercise of power(s) of office and, whether God is called on as witness or not, the "offer" (of fidelity/good behavior) is made to We the People (individually and collectively) from whom the powers of the office come. A formal, written "acceptance" of that "offer" (Oath) creates a binding contractual relationship which is very little different from the acceptance of a pledge of fealty. How many people do you know who have formally "accepted" the Oaths of civil servants?

The only legitimate grounds one might have for initiating remedy by impeachment would be a deliberate breach of the Article VI Oath. In order to have legitimate standing to do that, one must have a provable interest in (acceptance of) the Oath and proof of "injury" resulting from its breach (just like an action on contract).

Once an interest in and breach of Oath can be proven, one can initiate an impeachment by filing a charging instrument (similar to an indictment) with demand for impeachment. It is filed with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. All Articles/Bills of Impeachment must, like revenue Bills, originate in the House of Representatives. They, in turn, will pass it on to the Senate which has sole power to try impeachments under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution.

It is doubtful an impeachment will be vigorously prosecuted by Congress unless one is prepared to be a vociferous, belligerent and obnoxiously persistent claimant at every stage of the impeachment process. You have to make it clear that you are not going to back off until the impeachment process has fully run its course. Likewise, one must have the proper status and standing to bring one’s Articles of Impeachment. Registered voters have no standing in that regard.

Impeachment is serious business with serious consequences. It requires direct, hands-on involvement by We the People. And, any old-timer would caution, it is not something to get started unless the commitment is there to finish it.