§A   Defending Republican Government

The current abortion jurisprudence of the federal courts has no basis in the Constitution of the United States whatsoever. It is simply militantly pro-abortion judges forcing their policy preferences on the American people. For more than three decades the federal courts have acted as a dictatorship: They have taken away the people's right to rule on matters of human reproduction.

Until now, we and our elected leaders have patiently tolerated this judicial tyranny. This is an abrogation of our responsibility as Americans. The United States likes to parade its devotion to democracy all over the Earth. We proudly proclaim our moral superiority over countries that are not democratically governed. But here at home we let our leaders -- elected and unelected alike -- do whatever they please, the law, the Constitution, morality, and the will of the people be damned!

The federal judiciary's usurpation of legislative authority places American democracy at risk. Nothing less is at stake than the survival of the United States as a self-governing nation! And now our federal judiciary has ruled that infanticide is a fundamental constitutional right! If we do not now stand up and shout "ENOUGH!" then we are telling the world that we care more for servile obedience to unelected judges than we do for our political rights as citizens of a republic.

If you believe in elected government, then you must act!

§B   Stopping Judicial Tyranny

We must demand respect for our citizenship. The federal judiciary's usurpation of our sovereignty as citizens must be stopped once and for all. To do this, we must have a constitution that expressly requires that judges -- now and forever -- exercise judicial restraint. When a judge exercises judicial restraint, he simply applies the written laws to the cases that he hears. He makes no attempt to set his own policy preferences above the law; he allows his decisions to be circumscribed by the actions of the legislature. Without judicial restraint, there can be no real rule by the people. There can only be rule by the whim of judges.

The process of obtaining a constitutional promise of judicial restraint will force the people of the United States to see the monstrous dictatorship that our federal judiciary has become. And it will go a very long way towards teaching both judges and politicians the proper function of the courts in a self-governing nation.

So how do we acquire a constitution that requires restrained judges? There are two ways: We can replace our current constitution with another, or we can amend the current constitution. The Petition for a Judicial Restraint Amendment demands the latter course of action -- it is the easier of the two methods. This petition demands that Congress write and pass an amendment that requires federal judges to exercise judicial restraint, and then demands that the States ratify this amendment.

The government of the United States is the creation of the several States. Therefore each of the States bears an equal amount of responsibility for everything the federal government does. And all State officials must swear to defend the Constitution of the United States. To remind the several State governments of these responsibilities, this petition demands that they call a constitutional convention if Congress does not act on a judicial restraint amendment in a timely and satisfactory manner.

I, your Stop the Tyrants Project Director, urge all Americans who hold democracy dear to sign this petition! It is the duty of every American citizen to demand a republican form of government.

§C   A Judicial Restraint Amendment

In writing the Petition for a Judicial Restraint Amendment, I have made no attempt to create a constitutional amendment all by myself. Rather, I have simply noted what any judicial restraint amendment must contain: an explicit statement of the principles of proper jurisprudence, and a regime of term limits for all federal judges.

The six principles of proper jurisprudence listed in the Judicial Restraint petition are:

Principle 1

The judiciary shall not intervene in any social or political controversy unless the text of the Constitution clearly and specifically authorizes otherwise. This makes it clear that the courts are legal institutions, and not political, policy-making bodies.

Principle 2

The judiciary has no authority to create and implement positive legislation. This is a statement directed at the courts to tell them that only the elected legislature has the authority to make laws.

Principle 3

The original meaning of a legal provision - statutory or constitutional - is controlling. This denies judges the opportunity to use the so-called "living" nature of the law - the fanciful notion that laws evolve on their own over time - to justify their reading their own philosophical ideas into it.

Principle 4

The judiciary shall read laws as a whole, and according to their plain meaning. This principle forbids judges from deliberately misreading a law in order to label it unconstitutional (as has happened in many partial-birth abortion cases, including Stenberg v. Carhart).

Principle 5

The judiciary must apply the laws - as written - using a consistent set of neutral principles. This demands that judges not alter their jurisprudence because of the subject of a particular case; it also demands that they remain neutral on the question of what the law should say.

Principle 6

The judiciary shall not uphold previous rulings that they know to be unconstitutional. This makes a firm rebuttal of the idea that the Constitution may be amended by long-standing judicial error (as in the ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood). This tells judges that it is inappropriate for them to worry about the social or political consequences of a correct ruling.

The Constitution gives federal judges lifetime tenure. This was intended to insure the impartiality of the judiciary. Unfortunately, it actually serves to insure they will be anything but impartial. We must simply admit that the constitutional convention of 1787 made a serious mistake when granting federal judges their jobs for life. It is impossible to believe federal judges would be so arrogant if they did not have a guarantee of lifetime tenure! So the judicial restraint petition demands a regime of term limits for federal judges as a means of controlling their thirst for power.

The proposed regime of term limits consists of three parts, which are listed below.

Part A

A fixed, finite term in office for all federal judges. This will deny judges the ability to sustain their illegitimate rulings simply by remaining in office indefinitely.

Part B

A fixed, finite period of time after the term in office when the judge may not be reappointed to the federal courts. This "grace period" after a term in office is to maintain the judiciary's independence from momentary political pressures. A judge will not be able to earn another immediate term in office simply by pleasing the current president and senators.

Part C

No person may be appointed to more than two terms on the same court. This provision, aimed primarily at the appellate courts, prevents presidents from controlling a court simply by reappointing the same judges over and over.

See the Chapter 2 Table of Contents.