Judges And “Good Behavior” In The Courtroom

What is “Good Behavior”? How Does “Good Behavior” apply to both federal and state Judges?

How do “We the People” know what is required of the judges of this land, and when they are doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful way? More importantly, how do “We the people” know when the judges of either federal or the states are not doing their duty in a lawful manner, when they MUST be removed from office? What does it take to remove a judge from office when they are not using “Good Behavior”? Why is it important that “We the people” understand the difference between judges who use “Good Behavior” in the courtrooms and those who do not?  

How do “We the People” know what is required of the judges of this land, and when they are doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful way?

The US Constitution says what all judges, both state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position. We already know that they are lawfully required to take and keep an oath, or in the case of some judges – two oaths. So when are judges not doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful manner? According to the US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:

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, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

James Madison, Federalist 39, 250—53:

“According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.”

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

“The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case, and the example of the State Constitutions.”

 

Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary:

“But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

So what powers, authority, did the US Constitution assign to those who serve within the judiciary?

US Constitution, Article III Section. 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

–to Controversies between two or more States;

— between a State and Citizens of another State,

–between Citizens of different States,

–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Does that mean that any law created is to be upheld by the justices? No, The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,

“… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in.

Under our laws all justices must make their case decisions based on that those cases are “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” or found to NOT be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” to be lawful decisions. They are using “Good Behavior” and are keeping the contract agreed to when they do so.

Those justices that “interpret” the US Constitution, base their decisions on “precedent” without verifying that “precedent” to be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution”, or on foreign law are no longer in “Good Behavior” and have broken the contract that they are under.

The justices no longer using “Good Behavior” can be fired because they have broken the contract by not using the lawful authority assigned to the third branch of the federal government and to all justices within the states. They are REQUIRED to make sure that ALL laws – “The Laws of the United States, all Treaties made, or which shall be made – are IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” the US Constitution, and keep their oath to be in “Good Behavior” and to remain lawfully a justice within the federal or state governments.

They can be fired for breaking the contract, for not using “Good Behavior” as the law and contract requires!! Actually they must be fired when they are not using “Good Behavior” as required of them.

Thomas Jefferson:

“…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

Thomas Jefferson:

“The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

James Madison:

“But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner. On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Alexander Hamilton:

“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802:

“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The courts were NOT given the power to decide what Constitution means, to “interpret” it. They were given the power and duty to decide if the case in question follows the US Constitution, if it is in Pursuance thereof it. The US Constitution defines the standard that all laws must meet, that they MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here in the USA.

That is what the judges must decide, is it in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. If it is, then it is lawful. If it is not then it is NOT lawful and no one is bound by it. When they are performing that duty, then, and only then are they using “Good Behavior” and keeping the contract that they are under.

Why is it important that “We the people” understand the difference between judges who use “Good Behavior” in the courtrooms and those who do not?

So many believe only those in the government decides what happens and if they – in all three branches are good or bad. But here in America, the people are supposed to decide directly and indirectly through various means – though the last few decades it has been much ignored even in the courts. Many have also forgotten that the courts were to be an independent branch enforcing the US Constitution, under no type of coercion from either the executive or the legislative branches.

The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors.“We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behavior” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behavior”.

In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.  The jury nullifies a law that it believes is either a bad law.

Once a jury returns with a verdict of “Not Guilty,” that verdict cannot be questioned by any court, plus the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors:

“You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”

And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine:

“I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams:

“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

John Adams:

“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

“though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behavior” would be left to anyone else?

Samuel Chase:

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

Patrick Henry:

“Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off…This gives me comfort, that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.”

Thomas Jefferson:

“…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23:

“The Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes... They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”