Please sign at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-judge-james-robart
WHEN SIGNING: Don't forget to go into your email inbox and click the signature confirmation link!
(Please note that the code that updates the counter may be temporarily broken.)
We The People Ask the Federal Government to Call on Congress to Act on an Issue:
Impeach Judge James Robart
On February 3rd, 2017, James Robart, a federal district court judge, violated his oath of office by issuing a restraining order against the lawful authority of the People of the United States of America, which order obstructs the execution of needful immigration and travel laws, in usurpation of the lawful powers of the federal executive and legislature, and in violation of the law of nations. The said order endangers the People by allowing the admission of belligerents within the limits of the United States. Whereas federal judges hold their offices subject to good behavior, James Robart must therefore be removed from office.
END OF PETITION
Explanation of Petition to Impeach Judge James Robart, part 1
This petition should need no explanation for those who read the Constitution for the United States of America [1] and are aware of recent events with the case State of Washington et al versus Donald Trump et al, Case number 2:17-00141 [2] in Western District of Washington at Seattle, and also appellate case number 17-35105 [3] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
[1] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[2] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2017cv00141/241761
[3] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
Congress has the power to impeach judges for violations of the good behavior clause. See in Article 3, Section 1: "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". See also in: Art 1 Sec 2 "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.", A 1 S 3 "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.", and A 2 S 4 "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.".
According to a Motion for Stay, docket entry 14, on the appeal at [3], the position taken by the attorneys for the State of Washington would "lead to the untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war". This theory would violate the Congressional and Executive war powers [A 1 S 8] and [A 2 S 2].
A ruling which restrains the United States of America from exercising her power to determine which nations may travel freely into the United States on ground of suspicions of belligerency is a violation of the law of nations. See Antonin Scalia's dissent in [4] where he cites Vattel's Law of Nations. Because Congress has the power to define offenses against the law of nations [A 1 S 8], it has provided for imprisonment of aliens who enter within the limits of the United States illegally [5].
[4] Arizona v. US, 132 Supreme Court 2492 (2012) at pg. 2511. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17891750818453472454
Quote
The oath of office prescribed for a federal judge is at [28 USC 453]. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge for [court] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Therefore, a judge perjures himself whenever he materially violates the Constitution by misperforming his duties under the Constitution.
Based on information received from the press, men have been admitted within the United States through potentially improper vetting who qualify as belligerent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadist_extremism_in_the_United_States#Violent_Islamic_extremism. Even if Congress were to attempt classifying terrorists as non-belligerent, the People would still have the right to call them what they are.
Therefore Robart violates his oath of office when he interferes with the Congress' and the President's lawful policy which is the first logical step to attempt to improve the vetting process to weed out potential belligerents. It is still bad and impeachable behavior regardless of whether or not the President is able to improve the vetting process.
WHEN SIGNING: Don't forget to go into your email inbox and click the signature confirmation link!
(Please note that the code that updates the counter may be temporarily broken.)
We The People Ask the Federal Government to Call on Congress to Act on an Issue:
Impeach Judge James Robart
On February 3rd, 2017, James Robart, a federal district court judge, violated his oath of office by issuing a restraining order against the lawful authority of the People of the United States of America, which order obstructs the execution of needful immigration and travel laws, in usurpation of the lawful powers of the federal executive and legislature, and in violation of the law of nations. The said order endangers the People by allowing the admission of belligerents within the limits of the United States. Whereas federal judges hold their offices subject to good behavior, James Robart must therefore be removed from office.
END OF PETITION
Explanation of Petition to Impeach Judge James Robart, part 1
This petition should need no explanation for those who read the Constitution for the United States of America [1] and are aware of recent events with the case State of Washington et al versus Donald Trump et al, Case number 2:17-00141 [2] in Western District of Washington at Seattle, and also appellate case number 17-35105 [3] in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
[1] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[2] https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2017cv00141/241761
[3] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
Congress has the power to impeach judges for violations of the good behavior clause. See in Article 3, Section 1: "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". See also in: Art 1 Sec 2 "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.", A 1 S 3 "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.", and A 2 S 4 "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.".
According to a Motion for Stay, docket entry 14, on the appeal at [3], the position taken by the attorneys for the State of Washington would "lead to the untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war". This theory would violate the Congressional and Executive war powers [A 1 S 8] and [A 2 S 2].
A ruling which restrains the United States of America from exercising her power to determine which nations may travel freely into the United States on ground of suspicions of belligerency is a violation of the law of nations. See Antonin Scalia's dissent in [4] where he cites Vattel's Law of Nations. Because Congress has the power to define offenses against the law of nations [A 1 S 8], it has provided for imprisonment of aliens who enter within the limits of the United States illegally [5].
[4] Arizona v. US, 132 Supreme Court 2492 (2012) at pg. 2511. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17891750818453472454
Quote
As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel's seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:
"The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual." The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, § 94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds.2008).
See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) ("It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country").
[5] United States Code, Title 8, Section 1325, Improper entry by alien. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325. (Some Statutes At Large are cited at bottom.)"The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual." The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, § 94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds.2008).
See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) ("It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country").
The oath of office prescribed for a federal judge is at [28 USC 453]. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge for [court] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Therefore, a judge perjures himself whenever he materially violates the Constitution by misperforming his duties under the Constitution.
Based on information received from the press, men have been admitted within the United States through potentially improper vetting who qualify as belligerent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadist_extremism_in_the_United_States#Violent_Islamic_extremism. Even if Congress were to attempt classifying terrorists as non-belligerent, the People would still have the right to call them what they are.
Therefore Robart violates his oath of office when he interferes with the Congress' and the President's lawful policy which is the first logical step to attempt to improve the vetting process to weed out potential belligerents. It is still bad and impeachable behavior regardless of whether or not the President is able to improve the vetting process.
