Justice Dept. Appeals Ruling on “No Hereditary Kings”

Federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared in a ruling today: “We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent power’ must derive from that Constitution.”

The Justice Department is outraged by the ruling and is racing to appeal it.

I have not yet seen any briefs or other notices that the Justice Department has filed on the decision.   I would expect that they would not make a big deal out of the ‘hereditary king’ aspect of the ruling.  Instead, they will challenge the judge’s decision that Bush’s illegal warrantless NSA wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.

The judge noted: “The Government appears to argue here that …. because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.”

I presume that conservative activists are busy at this moment seeking evidence that this judge has received kickbacks from suspect Muslim charities.  Why else would a judge issue such a reactionary ruling?



, , , ,

31 Responses to Justice Dept. Appeals Ruling on “No Hereditary Kings”

  1. eddie smith August 17, 2006 at 5:50 pm #

    Do you think she will ever be in danger (or is she already) of losing her life over this?

  2. Bob August 17, 2006 at 5:53 pm #

    Fancy that – no kings! What a concept! I’m going to tell some of my brain dead neightbors. Maybe they’ll move to Britain! Or Spain!

  3. Sunni August 17, 2006 at 6:28 pm #

    Ha! Jim, you’re really tearing ’em up lately … sorry to be missing out on the fun myself, a little.

  4. Michael Badnarik August 17, 2006 at 6:29 pm #

    Wow! This happened earlier today! For once I don’t feel like I’m the last one to know something in the news.

    I think I’ll send the HONORABLE* Anna Diggs Taylor a copy of my book, Good to be King. The title is intended to suggest that we have 300 million sovereign “kings and queens” in this country that are the source of all political power.

    I want to thank Mr. Bovard for his tireless dedication to the cause of Liberty. “Thanks, James!”

    (* I can’t remember the last time I called a judge honorable – and meant it.)

  5. Jim August 17, 2006 at 7:12 pm #

    Thanks for all the comments!

    eddie – I don’t think the judge is in physical danger but I expect she will get slimed pretty hard over this. We will see how low Bush-bots go in raising questions about her pedigree.

    Bob – as for those monarch-loving neighbors – tell them not to let the gate at Ellis Island whack ’em in the butt as they are exiting the US.

    Sunni – good to hear from you from the heartland! I hope your trip across the West goes smoothly.   Like I said last time, if you get stopped by state police (anywhere except Utah), tell them you’re a friend of mine and that should  mollify them, as long as you’re not doing over 100 mph when you’re stopped.

    Michael Badnarik -thanks for the feedback. Yes, the notion of an “honorable judge” does feel like an oxymoron – but it does happen every now and then.  I appreciate this judge’s courage.  Watch the sparks fly…

  6. FreedomCommando August 17, 2006 at 8:36 pm #

    Why does Judge Taylor hate America so much? Why is she siding with the terrorists?

  7. Jim August 17, 2006 at 9:27 pm #

    I assume the right-wing bloggers are frenetically digging.

    I expect they will soon breathlessly reveal proof that the judge donated $20 to some Democrat running for dog-catcher in 1988.

    Since Arabs stereotypically don’t like dogs, this 1988 donation will be sufficient to prove that she acted deceitfully to disguise her pro-terrorist leanings.

  8. John Lowell August 17, 2006 at 11:01 pm #

    Yet another blow for the fuehrerpinzip that inspires these brownshirts. A strongly pro-life Catholic, I never thought I’d ever be grateful for the Breyer side of jurisprudence for anything but I was for the Gitmo decision. And now this one. Catholics really need to treat the next Supreme Court apointee with something more than the scrutiny Alito got. One more pro-life justice like him and we’ll all be singing Die Fahne Hoch.

  9. Kevin Carson August 18, 2006 at 12:41 am #

    Just about every legal aspect of the American Corporate State involves some revival of British precedents briefly abandoned during the revolution.

    Hamiltonian state capitalism is just transplanted Walpoleanism. The American common law was soon revised on a Blackstone-Mansfield pattern. The regulatory state’s powers of seizure and arrest without common law due process is based on the same civil law concepts as the admiralty courts the patriots got so fired up about. And the executive is claiming “inherent national security prerogatives” that sound like a flashback to the Stuart era.

    Why did we even waste our time with a revolution?

  10. Dr Bob August 18, 2006 at 12:44 am #

    Finally a judge has the balls ( even though it is a woman) to stand up to King George and tell him he has been dethroned.

  11. Ray August 18, 2006 at 1:43 am #

    You’re right Kevin, while Americans weren’t paying attention, the Tory Red Coats slipped back in and recaptured the colonies.

  12. Jim August 18, 2006 at 7:26 am #

    Kevin & Ray – The American Revolution was a worthwhile war for a principle, even if subsequent generations of politicians betrayed the principle.

    I am especially struck by the parallels between George W. Bush and the Stuart kings. And perhaps akin to James II, George W. is secretly planning to compel all Americans to embrace a religion of war.

  13. Clay S. Conrad August 18, 2006 at 9:27 am #

    One thing to be remembered: Judge Taylor was nominated to the bench by Jimmy Carter. The Carter nominees were pretty much the last of the honest jurists. After them, we’ve gotten ideologues and idiotlogues, and it is an open question which is more dangerous.

    Breyer, a Clinton nominee, is one of the worst on civil liberties, consistently voting for limits on constitutional rights in criminal cases (the recent Booker opinion is a good example.) Reagan and Bush I nominees were vetted for the conservative pedigree and not for their judicial insights, and Bush II nominees must demonstrate their ability to foam rabidly from the right side of the mouth before receiving their appointments.

    As bad as the Supreme Court Justices stemming from these last four presidents are, the Court of Appeals and District Court judges are far worse, undergoing much less scrutiny. Being appointed for life, their tenure will persist for thirty to forty more years.

  14. Original Steve August 18, 2006 at 10:23 am #

    Does this mean the govt should get a (gulp) warrant first???

    My God!

  15. Adem Kupi August 18, 2006 at 10:31 am #

    “You’re right Kevin, while Americans weren’t paying attention, the Tory Red Coats slipped back in and recaptured the colonies.”

    There’s really something to be said for that view, historically. Many of the early Federalists used the French Revolution as an excuse to become anti-France/pro-England partisans. They accused Jefferson of having Jacobin sympathies, etc. And of course the banking establishment in NY had strong ties to England.
    There’s some fishy stuff leading up to the War of 1812 as well.

  16. Jim August 18, 2006 at 11:16 am #

    Clay – excellent point – thanks. I have not paid that much attention to the folks put on the appellate bench in recent years. I have been appalled that advocating torture does not disqualify one to be a judge, as shown with several of Bush’s nominees. (If memory serves, one was confirmed even after his role in the torture scandal was exposed).

  17. Jim August 18, 2006 at 11:18 am #

    Adem – if only Americans recognized that politicians were up to no good when the bash the French!

    I am currently reading Henry Adams’s history of the Jefferson administration. Very well written but Adams’s pro-government tendencies – as well as his desire to vindicate his family – tarnish the work.

    I haven’t read much about the path to the War of 1812. Any recommendations?

  18. Crusader AXE August 18, 2006 at 3:20 pm #

    There is so much wrong with this decision from the Bush point of view. It’s literate, well-thought out, detailed, incisive, precise, in line with the founders’ intent and, oh yeah, correct.

    Oddly enough, I think the only thing standing between us and a coup by these guys is the military. A retired soldier, I spend a lot of time with active duty soldiers, sailors and Marines as well as retirees. The minute these clowns actually talk about suspending the consitution, they’ll find themselves in a tough position. If Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney demand something from the troops, and they act like they don’t hear, do they hear?

  19. Kirk Hayes August 18, 2006 at 3:43 pm #

    I am sure Augustus Bushus the Ignorant, with his horizontal learning curve, will be extremely surprised at the ruling.

    Imagine that – govt snooping on innocent people is unlawful. What a revelation.

    I wish there would be a penalty phase for the megalomaniacs that think they rule, rather than govern, us.

    Hooray for Anna Diggs Taylor.

    Kirk A. Hayes

  20. Original Steve August 18, 2006 at 5:01 pm #

    Bush was ranting about it this afternoon at Camp David. I guess his columnists will compare him to Lincoln since Honest Abe mulled over jailing Roger Taney.

  21. Jim August 18, 2006 at 5:37 pm #

    AXE – I think you are right – many soldiers and officers care far more for the Constitution than do Bush or Cheney.

    I believe I read somewhere that the top brass had balked about some Bush plans for “solving the Iranian problem.”

  22. Jim August 18, 2006 at 5:38 pm #

    Kirk – I think it would be a good penalty to require Bush to read the entire court decision out loud in public.

    And every time he screwed up the reading, he would have to start over again from the beginning.

  23. Jim August 18, 2006 at 5:39 pm #

    I heard something about Bush being very off his game during a press conference earlier today.

    I’m disappointed that none of the White House press corps has yet asked him to spell the word Hezbollah.

  24. Ray August 18, 2006 at 6:33 pm #

    Jim, if Bush had to start over again every time he screwed up the reading, that could be construed as torture…to those in the room listening.

  25. Jim August 18, 2006 at 6:42 pm #

    Ray, did I say I would be listening?

    The only fair solution: Make him read it before a Joint Session of Congress. Have the Sergeant in Arms prevent any members of Congress from leaving (or getting liquored up) until Bush finished.

  26. Eddie August 19, 2006 at 1:07 pm #

    Being a Bushite is like being in a Synagogue of Satan. Ask Pat the Christian Zionist.

  27. Mace Price August 19, 2006 at 2:32 pm #

    …a Federal Judge is to a Senator what a Captain is to a Bird Colonel—You can easily figure the outcome in an argument.

  28. Klaatu August 20, 2006 at 11:01 am #

    Yo Bovardi, do you know what ‘conservative’ means? Don’t you really mean Brownshirt Fascist Pigs?

  29. Paineite August 24, 2006 at 11:50 am #

    Hamilton and Adams were both monarchists. They endeavored to endow the president with the powers of monarchy and most presidents have continued to expand that power ever since. What we have now is the inevitable result. Stand up! Take back your government. May ALL the gods and powers and all of the people of this land bless and support Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for saying loud and clear what needs to be said today.

  30. Patty August 24, 2006 at 5:26 pm #

    I’m certainly on this judge’s side of the fence. Bush does act like a little tin Hitler and the worst of it is all of these passive americans giving him the go ahead. The bad thing is you vote into office congressmen who are greedy S. O. B.’s and care nothing about their constituency who put them there. I have e-mailed my congressmen numerous times about these particular things and you just get form letters back that do not address anything you’ve asked them. I hope people will soon open their eyes to the fact that we are going to hell in a hand basket soon.

  31. Jim August 27, 2006 at 5:18 pm #

    Patty – Maybe the congressmen don’t respond because they don’t read so good.

    Many of the congressional staffers I have run into seem illiterate – at least as far as any understanding of freedom or the dangers of governmetn power.

    I also hope that people open their eyes soon but I stopped holding my breath long about ’87.